prevent our infirmity for the future, but also frequently correct our past
offences, to preserve us in a course of legitimate obedience to himself.
Wherefore in every affliction we ought immediately to recollect the course
of our past life. In reviewing it, we shall certainly find that we have
committed what was deserving of such chastisement. Nevertheless the
exhortation to patience must not be principally founded on a consciousness
of sin. For the Scripture furnishes a far better consideration, when it
informs us, that in adversity “we are chastened of the Lord, that we
should not be condemned with the world.”(1852) Therefore, even in the
bitterness of tribulations, it becomes us to acknowledge the clemency and
benignity of our Father towards us; since even then he ceases not to
promote our salvation. For he afflicts, not to ruin or destroy us, but
rather to deliver us from the condemnation of the world. This idea will
lead us to what the Scripture inculcates in another place: “My son,
despise not the chastening of the Lord, neither be weary of his
correction; for whom the Lord loveth he correcteth, even as a father the
son in whom he delighteth.”(1853) When we recognize the rod of a father,
is it not our duty rather to show ourselves obedient and docile children,
than contumaciously to imitate desperate men, who have been hardened in
their transgressions? God loses us, unless he recalls us after our
defections from him; so that the apostle correctly remarks, “If ye be
without chastisement, then are ye bastards, and not sons.”(1854) We are
extremely perverse, therefore, if we cannot bear with him, while he
declares his benevolence towards us, and his great concern for our
salvation. The Scripture points out this difference between believers and
unbelievers; the latter, as the slaves of an inveterate and incurable
iniquity, are only rendered more wicked and obstinate by correction; the
former, like ingenuous children, are led to a salutary repentance. You
have to choose now in which number you would prefer to stand. But having
treated of this subject elsewhere, I shall conclude, contenting myself
with having thus briefly touched on it here.
VII. But it is a source of peculiar consolation when we suffer persecution
“for righteousness’ sake.”(1855) For we ought then to reflect how greatly
we are honoured by God, when he thus distinguishes us with the peculiar
characteristic of his service. I call it persecution for righteousness’
sake, not only when we suffer in defence of the gospel, but also when we
are molested in the vindication of any just cause. Whether, therefore, in
asserting the truth of God, in opposition to the falsehoods of Satan, or
in undertaking the protection of good and innocent men against the
injuries of the wicked, it be necessary for us to incur the resentment and
hatred of the world, by which our lives, our fortunes, or our reputation,
may be endangered,—let it not be grievous or irksome to us thus far to
employ ourselves in the service of God; nor let us imagine ourselves to be
miserable in those respects in which he has with his own mouth pronounced
us blessed. It is true, that poverty, considered in itself, is misery; and
the same may be said of exile, contempt, imprisonment, ignominy; finally,
death is of all calamities the last and worst. But with the favour of our
God, they are all conducive to our happiness. Let us therefore be content
with the testimony of Christ, rather than with the false opinion of the
flesh. Thus we shall rejoice, like the apostles, whenever he shall “count
us worthy to suffer shame for his name.”(1856) For if, being innocent and
conscious of our own integrity, we are stripped of our property by the
villany of the wicked, we are reduced to poverty indeed among men, but we
thereby obtain an increase of true riches with God in heaven; if we are
banished from our country, we are more intimately received into the family
of God; if we meet with vexation and contempt, we are so much the more
firmly rooted in Christ; if we are stigmatized with reproach and ignominy,
we are so much the more exalted in the kingdom of God; if we are
massacred, it opens an entrance for us into a life of blessedness. We
ought to be ashamed of setting a lower estimation on things on which the
Lord has attached such a great value, than on the shadowy and evanescent
pleasures of the present life.
VIII. Since the Scripture, therefore, by these and similar instructions,
affords abundant consolation under all the ignominy and calamity which we
sustain in the defence of righteousness, we are chargeable with extreme
ingratitude if we do not receive them from the hand of the Lord with
cheerful resignation; especially since this is the species of affliction,
or the cross, most peculiar to believers, by which Christ will be
glorified in us, according to the declaration of Peter.(1857) And
contumelious treatment being to ingenuous minds more intolerable than a
hundred deaths, Paul expressly apprizes us, that not only persecutions,
but reproaches await us, “because we trust in the living God.”(1858) As in
another place he directs us by his example to go through “evil report and
good report.”(1859) Nor are we required to exercise such a cheerfulness as
to banish all sense of bitterness and sorrow; the saints could discover no
patience under the cross, unless they were tormented with sorrow and
harassed with grief. If there were no hardship in poverty, no agony in
diseases, no distress in ignominy, no horror in death,—what fortitude or
moderation would be displayed in regarding them with absolute
indifference? But since each of these, by its own essential bitterness,
naturally preys on all our hearts, herein the fortitude of a believer is
manifested, if, when he experiences such bitterness, how grievously soever
he may be distressed by it, yet by valiantly resisting, he at length
overcomes it; his patience displays itself, if, when he is sharply
provoked, he is nevertheless restrained by the fear of God from any
eruptions of intemperance: his cheerfulness is conspicuous, if, when he is
wounded by sadness and sorrow, he is satisfied with the spiritual
consolation of God.
IX. This conflict, which believers sustain against the natural emotions of
sorrow, while they cultivate patience and moderation, Paul has beautifully
described in the following words: “We are troubled on every side, yet not
distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not
forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed.”(1860) You see that patiently to
bear the cross does not consist in an absolute stupefaction and privation
of all sense of sorrow, according to the foolish description given by the
ancient Stoics of a magnanimous man, as one who, divested of the feelings
of human nature, is alike unaffected by adverse and prosperous events, by
sorrowful and joyful ones. And what advantage have they derived from this
sublime wisdom? They have depicted an image of patience, such as never has
been found, such as never can exist among men; but in their ardour for a
patience too perfect and precise, they have banished its influence from
human life. At present also among Christians there are modern Stoics, who
esteem it sinful not only to groan and weep, but even to discover sadness
and solicitude. These paradoxes generally proceed from idle men, who,
employing themselves more in speculation than in action, can produce
nothing but such paradoxical notions. But we have nothing to do with that
iron‐hearted philosophy, which our Master and Lord has condemned not only
in words, but even by his own example. For he mourned and wept both for
his own calamities and for those of others. Nor did he teach his disciples
a different conduct. “The world,” says he, “shall rejoice, but ye shall
weep and lament.”(1861) And that no man might pervert it into a crime, he
has formally pronounced a blessing on them that mourn;(1862) and no
wonder. For if all tears be reprobated, what judgment shall we form
concerning the Lord himself, from whose body distilled tears of
blood?(1863) If every terror be stigmatized with the charge of unbelief,
what character shall we attribute to that horror and consternation with
which we read that he was so violently depressed? If all sorrow be
displeasing, how can we be pleased with his confessing that his “soul” was
“sorrowful even unto death?”
X. I have thought proper to mention these things, in order to preserve
pious minds from despair; that they may not hastily renounce the study of
patience, because they cannot divest themselves of the natural affection
of sorrow. This must necessarily be the case with those who degrade
patience into insensibility, and a man of fortitude and constancy into a
senseless block. For the Scripture applauds the saints for their patience,
when they are afflicted with severe calamities, but not broken and
overcome by them; when they are bitterly distressed, but are filled at the
same time with spiritual joy; when they are oppressed with anxiety, but
are revived and exhilarated with Divine consolation. At the same time
there is that opposition in their hearts, that the feelings of nature
avoid and dread those things which they experience to be inimical to it;
but the affection of piety struggles even through these difficulties to
obey the Divine will. This opposition the Lord expressed, when he thus
addressed Peter: “When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and
walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, another shall
gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.”(1864) It is not
probable that Peter, when he was called to glorify God by his death, was
drawn to it with reluctance and resistance; in this case his martyrdom
would be entitled to little applause. But however he might submit with the
greatest alacrity of heart to the Divine appointment, yet, not having
divested himself of human nature, he was distracted by two contrary
inclinations. For when he contemplated the bloody death he was about to
undergo, stricken with a dread of it, he would gladly have escaped. On the
contrary, when he considered that he was called to it by the Divine will,
suppressing all fear, he unreluctantly and even cheerfully submitted to
it. It must be our study, therefore, if we would be the disciples of
Christ, that our minds may be imbued with so great a reverence for God,
and such an unreserved obedience to him, as may overcome all contrary
affections, and make them submit to his appointments. Thus, whatever kind
of affliction we endure, even in the greatest distresses of the mind, we
shall constantly retain our patience. For adversity itself will have its
stings, with which we shall be wounded. Thus, when afflicted with disease,
we shall groan and be disquieted, and pray for the restoration of health;
thus, when oppressed with poverty, we shall feel the stings of solicitude
and sorrow; thus we shall be affected with the grief of ignominy,
contempt, and injury; thus we shall shed the tears due to nature at the
funerals of our friends; but we shall always recur to this conclusion,
This affliction is appointed by the Lord, therefore let us submit to his
will. Even in the agonies of grief, amid groans and tears, there is a
necessity for the intervention of this reflection, in order to incline the
heart cheerfully to bear those things by which it is so affected.
XI. But as we have deduced the principal reason for bearing the cross from
a consideration of the Divine will, we must briefly point out the
difference between philosophical and Christian patience. For very few of
the philosophers have risen to such an eminence of reason, as to perceive
that we are exercised with afflictions by the Divine hand, and to conclude
that God ought to be obeyed in these occurrences; and even those who have
gone to this length, adduce no other reason, than because it is necessary.
What is this but saying, that we must submit to God, because it were in
vain to contend against him? For if we obey God only from necessity, if it
were possible to escape from him, our obedience would cease. But the
Scripture enjoins us to consider the Divine will in a very different point
of view; first, as consistent with justice and equity; secondly, as
directed to the accomplishment of our salvation. Christian exhortations to
patience, then, are such as these: Whether we are afflicted with poverty,
or exile, or imprisonment, or reproach, or disease, or loss of relatives,
or any other similar calamity, we must reflect that none of these things
happen without the appointment and providence of God; and, moreover, that
he does nothing but with the most systematic justice. Do not our
innumerable and daily transgressions deserve more severe and grievous
chastisements than those which his clemency inflicts on us? Is it not
highly reasonable that our flesh should be subdued, and as it were
accustomed to the yoke, lest it should break out, according to its
propensities, into lawless excesses? Are not the righteousness and truth
of God worthy of our labours on their account? But if the equity of God
evidently appears in our afflictions, we cannot without iniquity either
murmur or resist. We no longer hear that frigid maxim of the philosophers,
We must submit to necessity; but a lesson lively and full of efficacy, We
must obey, because it is unlawful to resist: we must patiently suffer,
because impatience is a rebellious opposition to the justice of God.
Because nothing is really amiable to us but what we know to be conducive
to our benefit and salvation, our most merciful Father affords us
consolation also in this respect, by declaring, that even in afflicting us
with the cross, he promotes our salvation. But if it be evident that
tribulations are salutary for us, why should we not endure them with
grateful and placid hearts? In patiently bearing them, therefore, we do
not submit to necessity, but acquiesce in our own benefit. The effect of
these considerations is, that in proportion as our minds are oppressed
under the cross with the natural sense of affliction, so greatly are they
dilated with spiritual joy. This is attended also by thanksgiving, which
cannot be without joy. But if praise and thanksgiving to the Lord can only
proceed from a cheerful and joyful heart,—and there is nothing which ought
to repress these emotions within us,—this shows how necessary it is that
the bitterness of the cross should be tempered with spiritual joy.
Chapter IX. Meditation On The Future Life.
With whatever kind of tribulation we may be afflicted, we should always
keep this end in view—to habituate ourselves to a contempt of the present
life, that we may thereby be excited to meditation on that which is to
come. For the Lord, well knowing our strong natural inclination to a
brutish love of the world, adopts a most excellent method to reclaim us
and rouse us from our insensibility, that we may not be too tenaciously
attached to that foolish affection. There is not one of us who is not
desirous of appearing, through the whole course of his life, to aspire and
strive after celestial immortality. For we are ashamed of excelling in no
respect the brutal herds, whose condition would not be at all inferior to
ours, unless there remained to us a hope of eternity after death. But if
you examine the designs, pursuits, and actions of every individual, you
will find nothing in them but what is terrestrial. Hence that stupidity,
that the mental eyes, dazzled with the vain splendour of riches, power,
and honours, cannot see to any considerable distance. The heart also,
occupied and oppressed with avarice, ambition, and other inordinate
desires, cannot rise to any eminence. In a word, the whole soul,
fascinated by carnal allurements, seeks its felicity on earth. To oppose
this evil, the Lord, by continual lessons of miseries, teaches his
children the vanity of the present life. That they may not promise
themselves profound and secure peace in it, therefore he permits them to
be frequently disquieted and infested with wars or tumults, with robberies
or other injuries. That they may not aspire with too much avidity after
transient and uncertain riches, or depend on those which they
possess,—sometimes by exile, sometimes by the sterility of the land,
sometimes by a conflagration, sometimes by other means, he reduces them to
indigence, or at least confines them within the limits of mediocrity. That
they may not be too complacently delighted with conjugal blessings, he
either causes them to be distressed with the wickedness of their wives, or
humbles them with a wicked offspring, or afflicts them with want or loss
of children. But if in all these things he is more indulgent to them, yet
that they may not be inflated with vain glory, or improper confidence, he
shows them by diseases and dangers the unstable and transitory nature of
all mortal blessings. We therefore truly derive advantage from the
discipline of the cross, only when we learn that this life, considered in
itself, is unquiet, turbulent, miserable in numberless instances, and in
no respect altogether happy; and that all its reputed blessings are
uncertain, transient, vain, and adulterated with a mixture of many evils;
and in consequence of this at once conclude, that nothing can be sought or
expected on earth but conflict, and that when we think of a crown we must
raise our eyes towards heaven. For it must be admitted, that the mind is
never seriously excited to desire and meditate on the future life, without
having previously imbibed a contempt of the present.
II. There is no medium between these two extremes; either the earth must
become vile in our estimation, or it must retain our immoderate love.
Wherefore, if we have any concern about eternity, we must use our most
diligent efforts to extricate ourselves from these fetters. Now, since the
present life has numerous blandishments to attract us, and much pleasure,
beauty, and sweetness to delight us,—it is very necessary to our highest
interests, that we should be frequently called off, that we may not be
fascinated with such allurements. For what would be the consequence, if we
were perpetually happy in the enjoyment of the blessings of this life;
since we cannot, even by the incessant stimulus of calamity after
calamity, be sufficiently aroused to a consideration of its misery? That
human life is like a vapour or a shadow, is not only known to the learned,
but even the vulgar have no proverb more common; and perceiving it to be a
thing the knowledge of which would be eminently useful, they have
represented it in many remarkable sentences. But there is scarcely any
thing which we more carelessly consider, or sooner forget; for we
undertake every thing as though we were erecting for ourselves an
immortality on earth. If a funeral pass by, or we walk among the tombs,
because the image of death is then presented to our eyes, we philosophize,
I confess, in an admirable manner concerning the vanity of the present
life; although even that is not always the case, for frequently we are
quite unaffected with all these things. But when this effect is produced,
our philosophy is momentary, vanishing as soon as we withdraw, and leaving
not even the smallest vestige behind it; in short, it passes away, and is
forgotten just like the plaudits of a theatre at any entertaining
exhibition. And forgetting not only death, but mortality itself, as though
no rumour concerning it had ever reached us, we relapse into a supine
security of immortality on earth. If any one, in the mean time, reminds us
of the unwelcome proverb, that man is a creature of a day, we acknowledge
the truth of it indeed, but with such inattention that the idea of
perpetually living here still remains fixed in our minds. Who, then, can
deny, that it is highly useful to us all, I do not say to be admonished by
words, but by every possible evidence to be convinced, of the miserable
condition of the present life; since even after we are convinced of it, we
scarcely cease to be besotted with a perverse and foolish admiration of
it, as though it contained the greatest attainable blessings? But if it be
necessary for God to instruct us, it is, on the other hand, our duty to
listen to him when he calls, and rebukes our sluggishness; in order that,
despising the world, we may apply ourselves with our whole heart to
meditate on the life which is to come.
III. But believers should accustom themselves to such a contempt of the
present life, as may not generate either hatred of life, or ingratitude
towards God. For this life, though it is replete with innumerable
miseries, is yet deservedly reckoned among the Divine blessings which must
not be despised. Wherefore, if we discover nothing of the Divine
beneficence in it, we are already guilty of no small ingratitude towards
God himself. But to believers especially it should be a testimony of the
Divine benevolence, since the whole of it is destined to the advancement
of their salvation. For before he openly discovers to us the inheritance
of eternal glory, he intends to reveal himself as our Father in inferior
instances; and those are the benefits which he daily confers on us. Since
this life, then, is subservient to a knowledge of the Divine goodness,
shall we fastidiously scorn it, as though it contained no particle of
goodness in it? We must therefore have this sense and affection, to class
it among the bounties of the Divine benignity which are not to be
rejected. For if Scripture testimonies were wanting, which are very
numerous and clear, even nature itself exhorts us to give thanks to the
Lord for having introduced us to the light of life, for granting us the
use of it, and giving us all the helps necessary to its preservation. And
it is a far superior reason for gratitude, if we consider that here we are
in some measure prepared for the glory of the heavenly kingdom. For the
Lord has ordained, that they who are to be hereafter crowned in heaven,
must first engage in conflicts on earth, that they may not triumph without
having surmounted the difficulties of warfare and obtained the victory.
Another reason is, that here we begin in various blessings to taste the
sweetness of the Divine benignity, that our hope and desire may be excited
after the full revelation of it. When we have come to this conclusion,
that our life in this world is a gift of the Divine clemency, which, as we
owe to him, we ought to remember with gratitude, it will then be time for
us to descend to a consideration of its most miserable condition, that we
may be delivered from excessive love of it, to which, as has been
observed, we are naturally inclined.
IV. Now, whatever is abstracted from the corrupt love of this life should
be added to the desire of a better. I grant, indeed, the correctness of
their opinion, who considered it as the greatest blessing not to be born,
and as the next, to die immediately. For, being heathens, destitute of the
knowledge of God and of true religion, what could they see in it but
unhappiness and misery? Nor was there any thing irrational in the conduct
of those who mourned and wept at the births of their relations, and
solemnly rejoiced at their funerals. But they practised this without any
advantage; for, destitute of the true doctrine of faith, they did not
perceive how that can conduce to the benefit of the pious, which in itself
is neither blessed nor desirable; and so their views terminated in
despair. It should be the object of believers, therefore, in judging of
this mortal life, that understanding it to be of itself nothing but
misery, they may apply themselves wholly, with increasing cheerfulness and
readiness, to meditate on the future and eternal life. When we come to
this comparison, then indeed the former may be not only securely
neglected, but, in competition with the latter, altogether despised and
abhorred. For if heaven is our country, what is the earth but a place of
exile? If the departure out of the world is an entrance into life, what is
the world but a sepulchre? What is a continuance in it but an absorption
in death? If deliverance from the body is an introduction into complete
liberty, what is the body but a prison? If to enjoy the presence of God is
the summit of felicity, is it not misery to be destitute of it? But till
we escape out of the world, “we are absent from the Lord.”(1865)
Therefore, if the terrestrial life be compared with the celestial, it
should undoubtedly be despised and accounted of no value. It certainly is
never to be hated, except in as much as it keeps us obnoxious to sin;
although even that hatred is not properly to be applied to life itself. It
becomes us, however, to be so affected with weariness or hatred of it, as
to desire its end, but to be also prepared to remain in it during the
Divine pleasure; that is to say, our weariness should be remote from all
murmuring and impatience. For it is a post at which the Lord has placed
us, to be retained by us till he call us away. Paul, indeed, bewails his
lot, that he is kept in bondage by the fetters of the body longer than he
would wish, and sighs with an ardent desire of deliverance;(1866)
nevertheless, obedient to the Divine authority, he professes himself
prepared for both; for he acknowledges himself under an obligation to God
to glorify his name either by life or by death;(1867) but that it belongs
to the Lord to determine what will conduce most to his glory. Therefore,
if it becomes us “to live and to die to the Lord,”(1868) let us leave the
limits of our life and death to his decision; yet in such a manner, as
ardently to desire and continually to meditate on the latter, but to
despise the former in comparison with future immortality, and on account
of the servitude of sin, to wish to forsake it whenever it shall please
the Lord.
V. But it is monstrous, that instead of this desire of death, multitudes
who boast themselves to be Christians, are filled with such a dread of it,
that they tremble whenever it is mentioned, as if it were the greatest
calamity that could befall them. It is no wonder, indeed, if our natural
feelings should be alarmed at hearing of our dissolution. But it is
intolerable that there should not be in a Christian breast sufficient
light of piety to overcome and suppress all that fear with superior
consolation. For if we consider, that this unstable, depraved,
corruptible, frail, withering, and rotten tabernacle of our body is
dissolved, in order that it may hereafter be restored to a durable,
perfect, incorruptible, and heavenly glory,—will not faith constrain us
ardently to desire what nature dreads? If we consider, that by death we
are recalled from exile to inhabit our own country, and that a heavenly
one, shall we derive thence no consolation? But it will be said, There is
nothing that does not desire to be permanent. I admit it; and contend that
we ought therefore to direct our views to a future immortality, where we
may obtain a fixed condition, which is nowhere to be found on earth. For
Paul excellently teaches believers to go with alacrity to death, “not for
that they would be unclothed, but clothed upon.”(1869) Shall brute
animals, and even inanimate creatures, down to stocks and stones,
conscious of their present vanity, be looking forward to the resurrection
at the last day, that they may be delivered from vanity, together with the
children of God; and shall we, endued with the light of understanding,
and, what is superior to the natural understanding, illuminated with the
Spirit of God, when the question respects our own existence, not raise our
minds above the corruption of this world? But it is not necessary to my
present design, nor suitable in this place, to argue against such extreme
perverseness. And I have already declared in the beginning, that I would
not undertake a diffuse discussion of commonplace topics. I would persuade
such timid minds to read Cyprian’s treatise on Mortality, did they not
deserve rather to be referred to the philosophers, that they may begin to
blush, when they see the contempt of death discovered by them. But this we
may positively conclude, that no man has made any good proficiency in the
school of Christ, but he who joyfully expects both the day of death and
that of the final resurrection. For Paul describes all believers by this
character,(1870) and the Scripture often recalls our attention to it, when
it intends to furnish us with a reason for true joy. “Look up,” saith the
Lord, “and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”(1871) Is
it reasonable, that what he designed so powerfully to excite us to
exultation and alacrity, should produce nothing but sorrow and
consternation? If this be the case, why do we still glory in him as our
Master? Let us therefore acquire a sounder judgment; and notwithstanding
the opposition of the blind and stupid cupidity of our flesh, let us not
hesitate ardently to desire the advent of the Lord, as of all events the
most auspicious. For he shall come to us as a Redeemer, to deliver us from
this bottomless gulf of all evils and miseries, and introduce us into that
blessed inheritance of his life and glory.
VI. It is certainly true, that the whole family of believers, as long as
they dwell on the earth, must be “accounted as sheep for the
slaughter,”(1872) that they may be conformed to Christ their Head. Their
state, therefore, would be extremely deplorable, if they did not elevate
their thoughts towards heaven, rise above all sublunary things, and look
beyond present appearances.(1873) On the contrary, when they have once
raised their heads above this world, although they see the impious
flourishing in riches and honours, and enjoying the most profound
tranquillity; though they see them boasting of their splendour and luxury,
and behold them abounding in every delight; though they may also be
harassed by their wickedness, insulted by their pride, defrauded by their
avarice, and may receive from them any other lawless provocations,—yet
they will find no difficulty in supporting themselves even under such
calamities as these. For they will keep in view that day when the Lord
will receive his faithful servants into his peaceful kingdom; will wipe
every tear from their eyes,(1874) invest them with robes of joy, adorn
them with crowns of glory, entertain them with his ineffable delights,
exalt them to fellowship with his majesty, and, in a word, honour them
with a participation of his happiness. But the impious, who have been
great in this world, he will precipitate down to the lowest ignominy; he
will change their delights into torments, and their laughter and mirth
into weeping and gnashing of teeth; he will disturb their tranquillity
with dreadful agonies of conscience, and will punish their delicacy with
inextinguishable fire, and even put them in subjection to the pious, whose
patience they have abused. For, according to Paul, “it is a righteous
thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble” the saints,
“and to” them “who are troubled, rest, when the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven.”(1875) This is our only consolation; and deprived of
this, we must of necessity either sink into despondency of mind, or solace
ourselves to our own destruction with the vain pleasures of the world. For
even the Psalmist confesses that he staggered,(1876) when he was too much
engaged in contemplating the present prosperity of the impious; and that
he could no otherwise establish himself, till he entered the sanctuary of
God, and directed his views to the last end of the godly and of the
wicked. To conclude in one word, the cross of Christ triumphs, in the
hearts of believers, over the devil and the flesh, over sin and impious
men, only when their eyes are directed to the power of the resurrection.
Chapter X. The Right Use Of The Present Life And Its Supports.
By such principles, the Scripture also fully instructs us in the right use
of terrestrial blessings—a thing that ought not to be neglected in a plan
for the regulation of life. For if we must live, we must also use the
necessary supports of life; nor can we avoid even those things which
appear to subserve our pleasures rather than our necessities. It behooves
us, therefore, to observe moderation, that we may use them with a pure
conscience, whether for necessity or for pleasure. This the Lord
prescribes in his word, when he teaches us, that to his servants the
present life is like a pilgrimage, in which they are travelling towards
the celestial kingdom. If we are only to pass through the earth, we ought
undoubtedly to make such a use of its blessings as will rather assist than
retard us in our journey. It is not without reason, therefore, that Paul
advises us to use this world as though we used it not, and to buy with the
same disposition with which we sell.(1877) But as this is a difficult
subject, and there is danger of falling into one of two opposite errors,
let us endeavour to proceed on safe ground, that we may avoid both
extremes. For there have been some, in other respects good and holy men,
who, seeing that intemperance and luxury, unless restrained with more than
ordinary severity, would perpetually indulge the most extravagant
excesses, and desiring to correct such a pernicious evil, have adopted the
only method which occurred to them, by permitting men to use corporeal
blessings no further than their necessity should absolutely require. This
advice was well intended, but they were far too austere. For they
committed the very dangerous error of imposing on the conscience stricter
rules than those which are prescribed to it by the word of the Lord. By
restriction within the demands of necessity, they meant an abstinence from
every thing from which it is possible to abstain; so that, according to
them, it would scarcely be lawful to eat or drink any thing but bread and
water. Others have discovered still greater austerity, like Crates the
Theban, who is said to have thrown his wealth into the sea, from an
apprehension that, unless it were destroyed, he should himself be
destroyed by it. On the contrary, many in the present day, who seek a
pretext to excuse intemperance in the use of external things, and at the
same time desire to indulge the licentiousness of the flesh, assume as
granted, what I by no means concede to them, that this liberty is not to
be restricted by any limitation; but that it ought to be left to the
conscience of every individual to use as much as he thinks lawful for
himself. I grant, indeed, that it is neither right nor possible to bind
the conscience with the fixed and precise rules of law in this case; but
since the Scripture delivers general rules for the lawful use of earthly
things, our practice ought certainly to be regulated by them.
II. It must be laid down as a principle, that the use of the gifts of God
is not erroneous, when it is directed to the same end for which the
Creator himself has created and appointed them for us; since he has
created them for our benefit, not for our injury. Wherefore, no one will
observe a more proper rule, than he who shall diligently regard this end.
Now, if we consider for what end he has created the various kinds of
aliment, we shall find that he intended to provide not only for our
necessity, but likewise for our pleasure and delight. So in clothing, he
has had in view not mere necessity, but propriety and decency. In herbs,
trees, and fruits, beside their various uses, his design has been to
gratify us by graceful forms and pleasant odours. For if this were not
true, the Psalmist would not recount among the Divine blessings, “wine
that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to
shine;”(1878) nor would the Scriptures universally declare, in
commendation of his goodness, that he has given all these things to men.
And even the natural properties of things sufficiently indicate for what
end, and to what extent, it is lawful to use them. But shall the Lord have
endued flowers with such beauty, to present itself to our eyes, with such
sweetness of smell, to impress our sense of smelling; and shall it be
unlawful for our eyes to be affected with the beautiful sight, or our
olfactory nerves with the agreeable odour? What! has he not made such a
distinction of colours as to render some more agreeable than others? Has
he not given to gold and silver, to ivory and marble, a beauty which makes
them more precious than other metals or stones? In a word, has he not made
many things worthy of our estimation, independently of any necessary use?
III. Let us discard, therefore, that inhuman philosophy which, allowing no
use of the creatures but what is absolutely necessary, not only
malignantly deprives us of the lawful enjoyment of the Divine beneficence,
but which cannot be embraced till it has despoiled man of all his senses,
and reduced him to a senseless block. But, on the other hand, we must,
with equal diligence, oppose the licentiousness of the flesh; which,
unless it be rigidly restrained, transgresses every bound. And, as I have
observed, it has its advocates, who, under the pretext of liberty, allow
it every thing. In the first place, it will be one check to it, if it be
concluded, that all things are made for us, in order that we may know and
acknowledge their Author, and celebrate his goodness towards us by giving
him thanks. What will become of thanksgiving, if you overcharge yourself
with dainties or wine, so as to be stupefied or rendered unfit for the
duties of piety and the business of your station? Where is any
acknowledgment of God, if your body, in consequence of excessive
abundance, being inflamed with the vilest passions, infects the mind with
its impurity, so that you cannot discern what is right or virtuous? Where
is gratitude towards God for clothing, if, on account of our sumptuous
apparel, we admire ourselves and despise others? if with the elegance and
beauty of it, we prepare ourselves for unchastity? Where is our
acknowledgment of God, if our minds be fixed on the splendour of our
garments? For many so entirely devote all their senses to the pursuit of
pleasure, that the mind is, as it were, buried in it; many are so
delighted with marble, gold, and pictures, that they become like statues,
are, as it were, metamorphosed into metal, and resemble painted images.
The flavour of meats, or the sweetness of odours, so stupefies some, that
they have no relish for any thing spiritual. The same may be observed in
other cases. Wherefore it is evident, that this principle lays some
restraint on the license of abusing the Divine bounties, and confirms the
rule given us by Paul, that we “make not provision for the flesh, to
fulfil the lusts thereof;”(1879) which, if they are allowed too much
latitude, will transgress all the bounds of temperance and moderation.
IV. But there is no way more certain or concise, than what we derive from
a contempt of the present life, and meditation on a heavenly immortality.
For thence follow two rules. The first is, “that they that have wives be
as though they had none; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
and they that use this world, as not abusing it;”(1880) according to the
direction of Paul: the second, that we should learn to bear penury with
tranquillity and patience, as well as to enjoy abundance with moderation.
He who commands us to use this world as though we used it not, prohibits
not only all intemperance in eating and drinking, and excessive delicacy,
ambition, pride, haughtiness, and fastidiousness in our furniture, our
habitations, and our apparel, but every care and affection, which would
either seduce or disturb us from thoughts of the heavenly life, and
attention to the improvement of our souls. Now, it was anciently and truly
observed by Cato, That there is a great concern about adorning the body,
and a great carelessness about virtue; and it is an old proverb, That they
who are much engaged in the care of the body, are generally negligent of
the soul. Therefore, though the liberty of believers in external things
cannot be reduced to certain rules, yet it is evidently subject to this
law, That they should indulge themselves as little as possible; that, on
the contrary, they should perpetually and resolutely exert themselves to
retrench all superfluities and to restrain luxury; and that they should
diligently beware lest they pervert into impediments things which were
given for their assistance.
V. The other rule will be, That persons whose property is small should
learn to be patient under their privations, that they may not be tormented
with an immoderate desire of riches. They who observe this moderation,
have attained no small proficiency in the school of the Lord, as he who
has made no proficiency in this point can scarcely give any proof of his
being a disciple of Christ. For besides that an inordinate desire of
earthly things is accompanied by most other vices, he who is impatient
under penury, in abundance generally betrays the opposite passion. By this
I mean, that he who is ashamed of a mean garment, will be proud of a
splendid one; he who, not content with a slender meal, is disquieted with
the desire of a more sumptuous one, would also intemperately abuse those
dainties, should they fall to his lot; he who bears a private and mean
condition with discontent and disquietude, would not abstain from pride
and arrogance, should he rise to eminence and honours. Let all, therefore,
who are sincere in the practice of piety, earnestly endeavour to learn,
after the apostolic example, “both to be full and to be hungry, both to
abound and to suffer need.”(1881) The Scripture has also a third rule, by
which it regulates the use of earthly things; of which something was said,
when we treated of the precepts of charity. For it states, that while all
these things are given to us by the Divine goodness, and appointed for our
benefit, they are, as it were, deposits intrusted to our care, of which we
must one day give an account. We ought, therefore, to manage them in such
a manner that this alarm may be incessantly sounding in our ears, “Give an
account of thy stewardship.”(1882) Let it also be remembered by whom this
account is demanded; that it is by him who has so highly recommended
abstinence, sobriety, frugality, and modesty; who abhors profusion, pride,
ostentation, and vanity; who approves of no other management of his
blessings, than such as is connected with charity; who has with his own
mouth already condemned all those pleasures which seduce the heart from
chastity and purity, or tend to impair the understanding.
VI. Lastly, it is to be remarked, that the Lord commands every one of us,
in all the actions of life, to regard his vocation. For he knows with what
great inquietude the human mind is inflamed, with what desultory levity it
is hurried hither and thither, and how insatiable is its ambition to grasp
different things at once. Therefore, to prevent universal confusion being
produced by our folly and temerity, he has appointed to all their
particular duties in different spheres of life. And that no one might
rashly transgress the limits prescribed, he has styled such spheres of
life vocations, or callings. Every individual’s line of life, therefore,
is, as it were, a post assigned him by the Lord, that he may not wander
about in uncertainty all his days. And so necessary is this distinction,
that in his sight all our actions are estimated according to it, and often
very differently from the sentence of human reason and philosophy. There
is no exploit esteemed more honourable, even among philosophers, than to
deliver our country from tyranny; but the voice of the celestial Judge
openly condemns the private man who lays violent hands on a tyrant. It is
not my design, however, to stay to enumerate examples. It is sufficient if
we know that the principle and foundation of right conduct in every case
is the vocation of the Lord, and that he who disregards it will never keep
the right way in the duties of his station. He may sometimes, perhaps,
achieve something apparently laudable; but however it may appear in the
eyes of men, it will be rejected at the throne of God; besides which,
there will be no consistency between the various parts of his life. Our
life, therefore, will then be best regulated, when it is directed to this
mark; since no one will be impelled by his own temerity to attempt more
than is compatible with his calling, because he will know that it is
unlawful to transgress the bounds assigned him. He that is in obscurity
will lead a private life without discontent, so as not to desert the
station in which God has placed him. It will also be no small alleviation
of his cares, labours, troubles, and other burdens, when a man knows that
in all these things he has God for his guide. The magistrate will execute
his office with greater pleasure, the father of a family will confine
himself to his duty with more satisfaction, and all, in their respective
spheres of life, will bear and surmount the inconveniences, cares,
disappointments, and anxieties which befall them, when they shall be
persuaded that every individual has his burden laid upon him by God. Hence
also will arise peculiar consolation, since there will be no employment so
mean and sordid (provided we follow our vocation) as not to appear truly
respectable, and be deemed highly important in the sight of God.
Chapter XI. Justification By Faith. The Name And Thing Defined.
I think I have already explained, with sufficient care, how that men,
being subject to the curse of the law, have no means left of attaining
salvation but through faith alone; and also what faith itself is, what
Divine blessings it confers on man, and what effects it produces in him.
The substance of what I have advanced is, that Christ, being given to us
by the goodness of God, is apprehended and possessed by us by faith, by a
participation of whom we receive especially two benefits. In the first
place, being by his innocence reconciled to God, we have in heaven a
propitious father instead of a judge; in the next place, being sanctified
by his Spirit, we devote ourselves to innocence and purity of life. Of
regeneration, which is the second benefit, I have said what I thought was
sufficient. The method of justification has been but slightly touched,
because it was necessary, first to understand that the faith, by which
alone we attain gratuitous justification through the Divine mercy, is not
unattended with good works, and what is the nature of the good works of
the saints, in which part of this question consists. The subject of
justification, therefore, must now be fully discussed, and discussed with
the recollection that it is the principal hinge by which religion is
supported, in order that we may apply to it with the greater attention and
care. For unless we first of all apprehend in what situation we stand with
respect to God, and what his judgment is concerning us, we have no
foundation either for a certainty of salvation, or for the exercise of
piety towards God. But the necessity of knowing this subject will be more
evident from the knowledge itself.
II. But that we may not stumble at the threshold, (which would be the case
were we to enter on a disputation concerning a subject not understood by
us,) let us first explain the meaning of these expressions. _To be
justified in the sight of God, To be justified by faith or by works._ He
is said to be _justified in the sight of God_ who in the Divine judgment
is reputed righteous, and accepted on account of his righteousness; for as
iniquity is abominable to God, so no sinner can find favour in his sight,
as a sinner, or so long as he is considered as such. Wherever sin is,
therefore, it is accompanied with the wrath and vengeance of God. He is
justified who is considered not as a sinner, but as a righteous person,
and on that account stands in safety before the tribunal of God, where all
sinners are confounded and ruined. As, if an innocent man be brought under
an accusation before the tribunal of a just judge, when judgment is passed
according to his innocence, he is said to be justified or acquitted before
the judge, so he is justified before God, who, not being numbered among
sinners, has God for a witness and asserter of his righteousness. Thus he
must be said, therefore, to be _justified by works_, whose life discovers
such purity and holiness, as to deserve the character of righteousness
before the throne of God; or who, by the integrity of his works, can
answer and satisfy the divine judgment. On the other hand, he will be
_justified by faith_, who, being excluded from the righteousness of works,
apprehends by faith the righteousness of Christ, invested in which, he
appears, in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as a righteous man.
Thus we simply explain justification to be an acceptance, by which God
receives us into his favour, and esteems us as righteous persons; and we
say that it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ.
III. For the confirmation of this point there are many plain testimonies
of Scripture. In the first place, that this is the proper and most usual
signification of the word, cannot be denied. But since it would be too
tedious to collect all the passages and compare them together, let it
suffice to have suggested it to the reader; for he will easily observe it
of himself. I will only produce a few places, where this justification,
which we speak of, is expressly handled. First, where Luke relates that
“the people that heard Christ justified God;” and where Christ pronounces
that “wisdom is justified of all her children.”(1883) _To justify God_, in
the former passage, does not signify to confer righteousness, which always
remains perfect in him, although the whole world endeavour to rob him of
it; nor, in the latter passage, does _the justifying of wisdom_ denote
making the doctrine of salvation righteous, which is so of itself; but
both passages imply an ascription to God and to his doctrine of the praise
which they deserve. Again, when Christ reprehends the Pharisees for
“justifying themselves,”(1884) he does not mean that they attained
righteousness by doing what was right, but that they ostentatiously
endeavoured to gain the character of righteousness, of which they were
destitute. This is better understood by persons who are skilled in the
Hebrew language; which gives the appellation of _sinners_, not only to
those who are conscious to themselves of sin, but to persons who fall
under a sentence of condemnation. For Bathsheba, when she says, “I and my
son Solomon shall be counted offenders,” or sinners,(1885) confesses no
crime, but complains, that she and her son will be exposed to the disgrace
of being numbered among condemned criminals. And it appears from the
context, that this word, even in the translation, cannot be understood in
any other than a relative sense, and that it does not denote the real
character. But with respect to the present subject, where Paul says, “The
Scripture foresaw that God would justify the heathen through faith,”(1886)
what can we understand, but that God imputes righteousness through faith?
Again, when he says that God “justifieth the ungodly which believeth in
Jesus,”(1887) what can be the meaning, but that he delivers him by the
blessing of faith from the condemnation deserved by his ungodliness? He
speaks still more plainly in the conclusion, when he thus exclaims: “Who
shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that
justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather,
that is risen again, who also maketh intercession for us.”(1888) For it is
just as if he had said, Who shall accuse them whom God absolves? Who shall
condemn those for whom Christ intercedes? Justification, therefore, is no
other than an acquittal from guilt of him who was accused, as though his
innocence had been proved. Since God, therefore, justifies us through the
mediation of Christ, he acquits us, not by an admission of our personal
innocence, but by an imputation of righteousness; so that we, who are
unrighteous in ourselves, are considered as righteous in Christ. This is
the doctrine preached by Paul in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts:
“Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him
all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be
justified by the law of Moses.”(1889) We see that after remission of sins,
this justification is mentioned, as if by way of explanation: we see
clearly that it means an acquittal; that it is separated from the works of
the law; that it is a mere favour of Christ; that it is apprehended by
faith: we see, finally, the interposition of a satisfaction, when he says
that we are justified from sins by Christ. Thus, when it is said, that the
publican “went down to his house justified,”(1890) we cannot say that he
obtained righteousness by any merit of works. The meaning therefore is,
that after he had obtained the pardon of his sins, he was considered as
righteous in the sight of God. He was righteous, therefore, not through
any approbation of his works, but through God’s gracious absolution.
Wherefore Ambrose beautifully styles confession of sins, a legitimate
justification.
IV. But leaving all contention about the term, if we attend to the thing
itself, as it is described to us, every doubt will be removed. For Paul
certainly describes justification as an acceptance, when he says to the
Ephesians, “God hath predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus
Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the
praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted.”(1891)
The meaning of this passage is the same as when in another place we are
said to be “justified freely by his grace.”(1892) But in the fourth
chapter to the Romans, he first mentions an imputation of righteousness,
and immediately represents it as consisting in remission of sins. “David,”
says he, “describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven,” &c.(1893) He there, indeed, argues not concerning a branch, but
the whole of justification. He also adduces the definition of it given by
David, when he pronounces them to be blessed who receive the free
forgiveness of their sins; whence it appears, that this righteousness of
which he speaks is simply opposed to guilt. But the most decisive passage
of all on this point, is where he teaches us that the grand object of the
ministry of the gospel is, that we may “be reconciled to God,” because he
is pleased to receive us into his favour through Christ, “not imputing”
our “trespasses unto” us.(1894) Let the reader carefully examine the whole
context; for when, by way of explanation, he just after adds, in order to
describe the method of reconciliation, that Christ, “who knew no sin,” was
“made sin for us,”(1895) he undoubtedly means by the term
“reconciliation,” no other than justification. Nor would there be any
truth in what he affirms in another place, that we are “made righteous by
the obedience of Christ,”(1896) unless we are reputed righteous before
God, in him, and out of ourselves.
V. But since Osiander has introduced I know not what monstrous notion of
essential righteousness, by which, though he had no intention to destroy
justification by grace, yet he has involved it in such obscurity as
darkens pious minds, and deprives them of a serious sense of the grace of
Christ,—it will be worth while, before I pass to any thing else, to refute
this idle notion. In the first place, this speculation is the mere fruit
of insatiable curiosity. He accumulates, indeed, many testimonies of
Scripture, to prove that Christ is one with us, and we one with him, of
which there is no proof necessary; but for want of observing the bond of
this union, he bewilders himself. For us, however, who hold that we are
united to Christ by the secret energy of his Spirit, it will be easy to
obviate all his sophisms. He had conceived a notion similar to what was
held by the Manichæans, so that he wished to transfuse the Divine essence
into men. Hence another discovery of his, that Adam was formed in the
image of God, because, even antecedently to the fall, Christ had been
appointed the exemplar of the human nature. But for the sake of brevity, I
shall only insist on the subject now before us. He says that we are one
with Christ. This we admit; but we at the same time deny that Christ’s
essence is blended with ours. In the next place, we assert that this
principle—that Christ is our righteousness because he is the eternal God,
the fountain of righteousness, and the essential righteousness of God—is
grossly perverted to support his fallacies. The reader will excuse me, if
I now just hint at these things, which the order of the treatise requires
to be deferred to another place. But though he alleges, in vindication of
himself, that by the term _essential righteousness_ he only intends to
oppose the opinion that we are reputed righteous for the sake of Christ,
yet he manifestly shows, that, not content with that righteousness which
has been procured for us by the obedience and sacrificial death of Christ,
he imagines that we are substantially righteous in God, by the infusion of
his essence as well as his character. For this is the reason why he so
vehemently contends, that not only Christ, but the Father and the Holy
Spirit also dwell in us; which, though I allow it to be a truth, yet I
maintain that he has grossly perverted. For he ought to have fully
considered the nature of this inhabitation; namely, that the Father and
the Spirit are in Christ; and that as “all the fulness of the Godhead
dwelleth in him,”(1897) so in him we possess the whole Deity. Whatever,
therefore, he advances concerning the Father and the Spirit separately,
has no other tendency but to seduce the simple from Christ. In the next
place, he introduces a mixture of substances, by which God, transfusing
himself into us, makes us, as it were, a part of himself. For he considers
it as of no importance, that the power of the Holy Spirit unites us to
Christ, so that he becomes our head and we become his members, unless his
essence be blended with ours. But when speaking of the Father and the
Spirit, he more openly betrays his opinion; which is, that we are not
justified by the sole grace of the Mediator, and that righteousness is not
simply or really offered to us in his person; but that we are made
partakers of the Divine righteousness when God is essentially united with
us.
VI. If he had only said, that Christ in justifying us becomes ours by an
essential union, and that he is our head not only as man, but that the
essence of his Divine nature also is infused into us,—he might have
entertained himself with his fancies with less mischief, nor perhaps would
so great a contention have been excited about this reverie. But as this
principle is like a cuttlefish, which, by the emission of black and turbid
blood, conceals its many tails, there is a necessity for a vigorous
opposition to it, unless we mean to submit to be openly robbed of that
righteousness which alone affords us any confidence concerning our
salvation. For throughout this discussion, the terms _righteousness_ and
_justify_ are extended by him to two things. First, he understands that
“to be justified” denotes not only to be reconciled to God by a free
pardon, but also to be made righteous; and that righteousness is not a
gratuitous imputation, but a sanctity and integrity inspired by the Divine
essence which resides in us. Secondly, he resolutely denies that Christ is
our righteousness, as having, in the character of a priest, expiated our
sins and appeased the Father on our behalf, but as being the eternal God
and everlasting life. To prove the first assertion, that God justifies not
only by pardoning, but also by regenerating, he inquires whether God
leaves those whom he justifies in their natural state, without any
reformation of their manners. The answer is very easy; as Christ cannot be
divided, so these two blessings, which we receive together in him, are
also inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favour, he
likewise gives them the Spirit of adoption, by whose power he renews them
in his own image. But if the brightness of the sun be inseparable from his
heat, shall we therefore say that the earth is warmed by his light, and
illuminated by his heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the present
subject than this similitude. The beams of the sun quicken and fertilize
the earth, his rays brighten and illuminate it. Here is a mutual and
indivisible connection. Yet reason itself prohibits us to transfer to one
what is peculiar to the other. In this confusion of two blessings which
Osiander obtrudes on us, there is a similar absurdity. For as God actually
renews to the practice of righteousness those whom he gratuitously accepts
as righteous, Osiander confounds that gift of regeneration with this
gracious acceptance, and contends that they are one and the same. But the
Scripture, though it connects them together, yet enumerates them
distinctly, that the manifold grace of God may be the more evident to us.
For that passage of Paul is not superfluous, that “Christ is made unto us
righteousness and sanctification.”(1898) And whenever he argues, from the
salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God, and from the
grace of Christ, that we are called to holiness and purity, he plainly
indicates that it is one thing to be justified, and another thing to be
made new creatures. When Osiander appeals to the Scripture, he corrupts as
many passages as he cites. The assertion of Paul, that “to him that
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith
is counted for righteousness,”(1899) is explained by Osiander to denote
making a man righteous. With the same temerity he corrupts the whole of
that fourth chapter to the Romans, and hesitates not to impose the same
false gloss on the passage just cited, “Who shall lay any thing to the
charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth;” where it is evident
that the apostle is treating simply of accusation and absolution, and that
his meaning wholly rests on the antithesis. His folly, therefore, betrays
itself both in his arguments and in his citations of Scripture proofs.
With no more propriety does he treat of the word righteousness, when he
says, “that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness,” because that
after having embraced Christ, (who is the righteousness of God, and God
himself,) he was eminent for the greatest virtues. Whence it appears, that
of two good parts, he erroneously makes one corrupt whole; for the
righteousness there mentioned does not belong to the whole course of
Abraham’s life; but rather the Spirit testifies that, notwithstanding the
singular eminence of Abraham’s virtues, and his laudable and persevering
advancement in them, yet he did not please God any otherwise than in
receiving by faith the grace offered in the promise. Whence it follows,
that in justification there is no regard paid to works, as Paul
conclusively argues in that passage.
VII. His objection, that the power of justifying belongs not to faith of
itself, but only as it receives Christ, I readily admit. For if faith were
to justify of itself, or by an intrinsic efficacy, as it is expressed,
being always weak and imperfect, it never could effect this but in part;
and thus it would be a defective justification, which would only confer on
us a partial salvation. Now, we entertain no such notion as the objection
supposes; on the contrary, we affirm that, strictly speaking, “it is God
that justifies;” and then we transfer this to Christ, because he is given
to us for righteousness. Faith we compare to a vessel; for unless we come
empty with the mouth of our soul open to implore the grace of Christ, we
cannot receive Christ. Whence it may be inferred, that we do not detract
from Christ the power of justifying, when we teach that faith receives him
before it receives his righteousness. Nevertheless, I cannot admit the
intricate comparisons of this sophist, when he says that faith is Christ;
as though an earthen vessel were a treasure, because gold is concealed in
it. For faith, although intrinsically it is of no dignity or value,
justifies us by an application of Christ, just as a vessel full of money
constitutes a man rich. Therefore I maintain that faith, which is only the
instrument by which righteousness is received, cannot without absurdity be
confounded with Christ, who is the material cause, and at once the author
and dispenser of so great a benefit. We have now removed the difficulty as
to the sense in which the word _faith_ ought to be understood, when it is
applied to justification.
VIII. Respecting the reception of Christ, he goes still greater lengths;
asserting that the internal word is received by the ministry of the
external word, by which he would divert us from the priesthood of Christ
and the person of the Mediator, to his eternal divinity. We do not divide
Christ, but we maintain that the same person, who, by reconciling us to
the Father in his own flesh, has given us righteousness, is the eternal
Word of God; and we confess that he could not otherwise have discharged
the office of Mediator, and procured righteousness for us, if he were not
the eternal God. But the opinion of Osiander is, that since Christ is both
God and man, he is made righteousness to us, in respect of his Divine, not
his human nature. Now, if this properly belong to the Divinity, it will
not be peculiar to Christ, but common also to the Father and the Spirit;
since the righteousness of one is the same as that of the others. Besides,
what has been naturally eternal, cannot with propriety be said to be “made
unto us.” But though we grant that God is made righteousness unto us, how
will it agree with the clause which is inserted, that “of God,” he “is
made unto us righteousness?” This is certainly peculiar to the character
of the Mediator, who, though he contains in himself the Divine nature, yet
is designated by this appropriate title, by which he is distinguished from
the Father and the Spirit. But he ridiculously triumphs in that single
expression of Jeremiah, where he promises that “the Lord,” _Jehovah_, will
be “our righteousness.”(1900) He can deduce nothing from this, but that
Christ, who is our righteousness, is God manifested in the flesh. We have
elsewhere recited from Paul’s sermon, that “God hath purchased the Church
with his own blood.”(1901) If any should infer from this, that the blood
by which our sins were expiated, was Divine, and part of the Divine
nature, who could bear so monstrous an error? But Osiander thinks he has
gained every thing by this very puerile cavil; he swells, exults, and
fills many pages with his swelling words, though the passage is simply and
readily explained, by saying that Jehovah, when he should become the seed
of David, would be the righteousness of the pious; and in the same sense
Isaiah informs us, “by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify
many.”(1902) Let us remark, that the speaker here is the Father; that he
attributes to his Son the office of justifying; that he adds as a reason,
that he is righteous; and that he places the mode or means of effecting
this, in the doctrine by which Christ is made known. For it is more
suitable to understand the word דעת in a passive sense. Hence I conclude,
first, that Christ was made righteousness when he assumed the form of a
servant; secondly, that he justifies us by his own obedience to the
Father; and, therefore, that he does this for us, not according to his
Divine nature, but by reason of the dispensation committed to him. For
though God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and we are righteous
only by a participation of him, yet, because we have been alienated from
his righteousness through the unhappy breach occasioned by the fall, we
are under the necessity of descending to this inferior remedy, to be
justified by Christ, by the efficacy of his death and resurrection.
IX. If Osiander object, that the excellence of this work surpasses the
nature of man, and therefore can be ascribed only to the Divine
nature,—the former part of the objection I admit, but in the latter I
maintain that he is grossly mistaken. For although Christ could neither
purify our souls with his blood, nor appease the Father by his sacrifice,
nor absolve us from guilt, nor, in short, perform the functions of a
priest, if he were not truly God, because human power would have been
unequal to so great a burden, yet it is certain that he performed all
these things in his human nature. For if it be inquired, How are we
justified? Paul replies, “By the obedience” of Christ.(1903) But has he
obeyed in any other way than by assuming the form of a servant? Hence we
infer, that righteousness is presented to us in his flesh. In the other
passage also, which I much wonder that Osiander is not ashamed to quote so
frequently, Paul places the source of righteousness wholly in the humanity
of Christ. “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1904) Osiander lays great
stress on “the righteousness of God,” and triumphs as though he had
evinced it to be his notion of essential righteousness; whereas the words
convey a very different idea,—that we are righteous through the expiation
effected by Christ. That “the righteousness of God” means that which God
approves, ought to have been known to the youngest novices; just as in
John “the praise of God” is opposed to “the praise of men.”(1905) I know
that “the righteousness of God” sometimes denotes that of which he is the
author, and which he bestows upon us; but, without any observation of
mine, the judicious reader will perceive that the meaning of this passage
is only, that we stand before the tribunal of God supported by the atoning
death of Christ. Nor is the term of such great importance, provided that
Osiander coincides with us in this, that we are justified in Christ,
inasmuch as he was made an expiatory sacrifice for us; which is altogether
incompatible with his Divine nature. For this reason, when Christ designs
to seal the righteousness and salvation which he has presented to us, he
exhibits a certain pledge of it in his flesh. He calls himself, indeed,
“living bread;” but adds, by way of explanation, “my flesh is meat indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed.” This method of instruction is discovered in
the sacraments; which, although they direct our faith to the whole of the
person of Christ, not to a part of him only, yet at the same time teach
that the matter of justification and salvation resides in his human
nature; not that he either justifies or vivifies, of himself as a mere
man, but because it has pleased God to manifest in the Mediator that which
was incomprehensible and hidden in himself. Wherefore I am accustomed to
say, that Christ is, as it were, a fountain opened to us, whence we may
draw what were otherwise concealed and useless in that secret and deep
fountain which flows to us in the person of the Mediator. In this manner,
and in this sense, provided he will submit to the clear and forcible
arguments which I have adduced, I do not deny that Christ justifies us, as
he is God and man, and that this work is common also to the Father and the
Spirit; and, finally, that the righteousness of which Christ makes us
partakers, is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God.
X. Moreover, that his cavils may not deceive the inexperienced, I confess
that we are destitute of this incomparable blessing, till Christ becomes
ours. I attribute, therefore, the highest importance to the connection
between the head and members; to the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts;
in a word, to the mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that being made
ours, he makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished.
We do not, then, contemplate him at a distance out of ourselves, that his
righteousness may be imputed to us; but because we have put him on, and
are ingrafted into his body, and because he has deigned to unite us to
himself, therefore we glory in a participation of his righteousness. Thus
we refute the cavil of Osiander, that faith is considered by us as
righteousness; as though we despoiled Christ of his right, when we affirm,
that by faith we come to him empty, that he alone may fill us with his
grace. But Osiander, despising this spiritual connection, insists on a
gross mixture of Christ with believers; and therefore invidiously gives
the appellation of Zuinglians to all who do not subscribe to his fanatical
error concerning essential righteousness; because they are not of opinion
that Christ is substantially eaten in the sacred supper. As for myself,
indeed, I consider it the highest honour to be thus reproached by a man so
proud and so absorbed in his own delusions; although he attacks not me
alone, but other writers well known in the world, whom he ought to have
treated with modest respect. But this does not at all affect me, who am
supporting no private interest; wherefore I the more unreservedly advocate
this cause, conscious that I am free from every sinister motive. His great
importunity in insisting on essential righteousness, and an essential
inhabitation of Christ in us, goes to this length—first, that God
transfuses himself into us by a gross mixture of himself with us, as he
pretends that there is a carnal eating in the sacred supper; secondly,
that God inspires his righteousness into us, by which we are really
righteous with him, since, according to this man, such righteousness is as
really God himself, as the goodness, or holiness, or perfection of God. I
shall not take much trouble to refute the testimonies adduced by him,
which he violently perverts from the celestial to the present state. By
Christ, says Peter, “are given unto us exceeding great and precious
promises; that by these ye might be partakers of the Divine nature.”(1906)
As though we were now such as the gospel promises we shall be at the
second advent of Christ; nay, John apprizes us, that _then_ “we shall be
like God; for we shall see him as he is.”(1907) I have thought proper to
give the reader only a small specimen, and endeavoured to pass over these
impertinences, not that it is difficult to refute them, but because I am
unwilling to be tedious in labouring to no purpose.
XI. There is yet more latent poison in the second particular, in which he
maintains, that we are righteous together with God. I think I have already
sufficiently demonstrated, that although this dogma were not so
pestiferous, yet because it is weak and unsatisfactory, and evaporates
through its own inanity, it ought justly to be rejected by all judicious
and pious readers. But this is an impiety not to be tolerated—under the
pretext of a twofold righteousness to weaken the assurance of salvation,
and to elevate us above the clouds, that we may not embrace by faith the
grace of expiation, and call upon God with tranquillity of mind. Osiander
ridicules those who say that justification is a forensic term, because it
is necessary for us to be actually righteous: nor is there any thing that
he more dislikes than the doctrine that we are justified by gratuitous
imputation. Now, if God do not justify by absolving and pardoning us, what
is the meaning of this declaration of Paul? “God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto
them. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1908) First I find, that
they are accounted righteous who are reconciled to God: the manner is
specified, that God justifies by pardoning; just as, in another passage,
justification is opposed to accusation; which antithesis clearly
demonstrates, that the form of expression is borrowed from the practice of
courts. Nor is there any one, but tolerably versed in the Hebrew language,
provided at the same time that he be in his sound senses, who can be
ignorant that this is the original of the phrase, and that this is its
import and meaning. Now, let Osiander answer me whether, where Paul says
that “David describeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are
they whose iniquities are forgiven,”(1909) whether, I say, this be a
complete definition or a partial one. Certainly Paul does not adduce the
testimony of the Psalmist, as teaching that pardon of sins is a part of
righteousness, or concurs to the justification of a man; but he includes
the whole of righteousness in a free remission, pronouncing, “Blessed are
they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is
the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” He thence estimates and
judges of the felicity of such a man, because in this way he becomes
righteous, not actually, but by imputation. Osiander objects, that it
would be dishonourable to God, and contrary to his nature, if he justified
those who still remain actually impious. But it should be remembered that,
as I have already observed, the grace of justification is inseparable from
regeneration, although they are distinct things. But since it is
sufficiently known from experience, that some relics of sin always remain
in the righteous, the manner of their justification must of necessity be
very different from that of their renovation to newness of life. For the
latter God commences in his elect, and as long as they live carries it on
gradually, and sometimes slowly, so that they are always obnoxious at his
tribunal to the sentence of death. He justifies them, however, not in a
partial manner, but so completely, that they may boldly appear in heaven,
as being invested with the purity of Christ. For no portion of
righteousness could satisfy our consciences, till we have ascertained that
God is pleased with us, as being unexceptionably righteous before him.
Whence it follows, that the doctrine of justification is perverted and
totally overturned, when doubts are injected into the mind, when the
confidence of salvation is shaken, when bold and fearless worship is
interrupted, and when quiet and tranquillity with spiritual joy are not
established. Whence Paul argues from the incompatibility of things
contrary to each other, that the inheritance is not of the law, because
then faith would be rendered vain;(1910) which, if it be fixed upon works,
must inevitably fall; since not even the most holy of all saints will find
them afford any ground of confidence. This difference between
justification and regeneration (which Osiander confounds together, and
denominates a twofold righteousness) is beautifully expressed by Paul;
for, speaking of his real righteousness, or of the integrity which he
possessed, to which Osiander gives the appellation of essential
righteousness, he sorrowfully exclaims, “O wretched man that I am! who
shall deliver me from the body of this death?”(1911) But resorting to the
righteousness which is founded in the Divine mercy alone, he nobly
triumphs over life, and death, and reproaches, and famine, and the sword,
and all adverse things and persons. “Who shall lay any thing to the charge
of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. For I am persuaded, that
nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in
Christ Jesus our Lord.”(1912) He plainly declares himself to be possessed
of that righteousness, which alone is fully sufficient for salvation in
the sight of God; so that the miserable servitude, in a consciousness of
which he was just before bewailing his condition, neither diminishes, nor
in the smallest degree interrupts, the confidence with which he triumphs.
This diversity is sufficiently known, and is even familiar to all the
saints, who groan under the burden of their iniquities, and yet with
victorious confidence rise superior to every fear. But the objection of
Osiander, that it is incongruous to the nature of God, recoils upon
himself; for, although he invests the saints with a twofold righteousness,
as with a garment covered with skins, he is, notwithstanding, constrained
to acknowledge that no man can please God without the remission of his
sins. If this be true, he should at least grant that they who are not
actually righteous, are accounted righteous in proportion, as it is
expressed, to the degree of imputation. But how far shall a sinner extend
this gracious acceptance, which is substituted in the place of
righteousness? Shall he estimate it by the weight? Truly he will be in
great uncertainty to which side to incline the balance; because he will
not be able to assume to himself as much righteousness as may be necessary
to his confidence. It is well that he, who would wish to prescribe laws to
God, is not the arbiter of this cause. But this address of David to God
will remain: “That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be
clear when thou judgest.”(1913) And what extreme arrogance it is to
condemn the supreme Judge when he freely absolves, and not to be satisfied
with this answer, “I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy!”(1914) And
yet the intercession of Moses, which God checked with this reply, was not
that he would spare none, but that, though they were guilty, he would
remove their guilt and absolve them all at once. We affirm, therefore,
that those who were undone are justified before God by the obliteration of
their sins; because, sin being the object of his hatred, he can love none
but those whom he justifies. But this is a wonderful method of
justification, that sinners, being invested with the righteousness of
Christ, dread not the judgment which they have deserved; and that, while
they justly condemn themselves, they are accounted righteous out of
themselves.
XII. But the readers must be cautioned to pay a strict attention to the
mystery which Osiander boasts that he will not conceal from them. For,
after having contended with great prolixity, that we do not obtain favour
with God solely through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,
because it would be impossible for him to esteem those as righteous who
are not so, (I use his own words,) he at length concludes, that Christ is
given to us for righteousness, not in respect of his human, but of his
Divine nature; and that, though this righteousness can only be found in
the person of the Mediator, yet it is the righteousness, not of man, but
of God. He does not combine two righteousnesses, but evidently deprives
the humanity of Christ of all concern in the matter of justification. It
is worth while, however, to hear what arguments he adduces. It is said in
the passage referred to, that “Christ is made unto us wisdom,”(1915) which
is applicable only to the eternal Word. Neither, therefore, is Christ,
considered as man our righteousness. I reply, that the only begotten Son
of God was indeed his eternal wisdom; but this title is here ascribed to
him by Paul in a different sense, because “in him are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”(1916) What, therefore, he had with the
Father, he has manifested to us; and so what Paul says, refers not to the
essence of the Son of God, but to our benefit, and is rightly applied to
the humanity of Christ; because, although he was a light shining in
darkness before his assumption of the flesh, yet he was a hidden light
till he appeared in the nature of man “as the Sun of righteousness;”(1917)
wherefore he calls himself “the light of the world.”(1918) Osiander
betrays his folly likewise in objecting, that justification exceeds the
power of angels and men; since it depends not upon the dignity of any
creature, but upon the appointment of God. If angels were desirous to
offer a satisfaction to God, it would be unavailing; because they have not
been appointed to it. This was peculiar to the man Christ, who was “made
under the law, to redeem us from the curse of the law.”(1919) He likewise
very unjustly accuses those who deny that Christ is our righteousness
according to his Divine nature, of retaining only one part of Christ, and
(what is worse) making two Gods; because, though they acknowledge that God
dwells in us, yet they flatly deny that we are righteous through the
righteousness of God. For if we call Christ the author of life in
consequence of his having suffered death, “that he might destroy him that
had the power of death,”(1920) it is not to be inferred that we deny this
honour to his complete person, as God manifested in the flesh: we only
state with precision the means by which the righteousness of God is
conveyed to us, so that we may enjoy it. In this, Osiander has fallen into
a very pernicious error. We do not deny, that what is openly exhibited to
us in Christ flows from the secret grace and power of God; nor do we
refuse to admit, that the righteousness conferred on us by Christ is the
righteousness of God as proceeding from him; but we constantly maintain
that we have righteousness and life in the death and resurrection of
Christ. I pass over that shameful accumulation of passages, with which,
without any discrimination, and even without common sense, he has burdened
the reader, in order to evince, that wherever mention is made of
righteousness, it ought to be understood of this essential righteousness;
as where David implores the righteousness of God to assist him; which as
he does above a hundred times, Osiander hesitates not to pervert such a
great number of passages. Nor is there any thing more solid in his other
objection, that the term “righteousness” is properly and rightly applied
to that by which we are excited to rectitude of conduct, and that God
alone “worketh in us both to will and to do.”(1921) Now, we do not deny,
that God renews us by his Spirit to holiness and righteousness of life;
but it should first be inquired, whether he does this immediately by
himself, or through the medium of his Son, with whom he has deposited all
the plenitude of his Spirit, that with his abundance he might relieve the
necessities of his members. Besides, though righteousness flows to us from
the secret fountain of the Divinity, yet it does not follow that Christ,
who in the flesh sanctified himself for our sakes,(1922) is our
righteousness with respect to his Divine nature. Equally frivolous is his
assertion, that Christ himself was righteous with the righteousness of
God; because, if he had not been influenced by the will of the Father, not
even he could have performed the part assigned him. For though it has been
elsewhere observed, that all the merit of Christ himself flows from the
mere favour of God, yet this affords no countenance to the fanciful notion
with which Osiander fascinates his own eyes and those of the injudicious.
For who would admit the inference, that because God is the original source
of our righteousness, we are therefore essentially righteous, and have the
essence of the Divine righteousness residing in us? In redeeming the
Church (Isaiah says) God “put on righteousness as a breastplate;”(1923)
but was it to spoil Christ of the armour which he had given him, and to
prevent his being a perfect Redeemer? The prophet only meant that God
borrowed nothing extrinsic to himself, and had no assistance in the work
of our redemption. Paul has briefly intimated the same in other words,
saying that he has given us salvation in order “to declare his
righteousness.”(1924) Nor does this at all contradict what he states in
another place, “that by the obedience of one we are made righteous.”(1925)
To conclude: whoever fabricates a twofold righteousness, that wretched
souls may not rely wholly and exclusively on the Divine mercy, makes
Christ an object of contempt, and crowns him with platted thorns.
XIII. But as many persons imagine righteousness to be composed of faith
and works, let us also prove, before we proceed, that the righteousness of
faith is so exceedingly different from that of works, that if one be
established, the other must necessarily be subverted. The apostle says, “I
count all things but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not
having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is
through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by
faith.”(1926) Here we see a comparison of two opposites, and an
implication that his own righteousness must be forsaken by him who wishes
to obtain the righteousness of Christ. Wherefore, in another place, he
states this to have been the cause of the ruin of the Jews, that, “going
about to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted
themselves unto the righteousness of God.”(1927) If, by establishing our
own righteousness, we reject the righteousness of God, then, in order to
obtain the latter, the former must doubtless be entirely renounced. He
conveys the same sentiment when he asserts, that “boasting is excluded. By
what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith.”(1928) Whence it
follows, that as long as there remains the least particle of righteousness
in our works, we retain some cause for boasting. But if faith excludes all
boasting, the righteousness of works can by no means be associated with
the righteousness of faith. To this purpose he speaks so clearly in the
fourth chapter to the Romans, as to leave no room for cavil or evasion.
“If Abraham (says he) were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.”
He adds, “but” he hath “not” whereof to glory “before God.”(1929) It
follows, therefore, that he was not justified by works. Then he advances
another argument from two opposites. “To him that worketh is the reward
not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”(1930) But righteousness is attributed
to faith through grace. Therefore it is not from the merit of works.
Adieu, therefore, to the fanciful notion of those who imagine a
righteousness compounded of faith and works.
XIV. The sophists, who amuse and delight themselves with perversion of the
Scripture and vain cavils, think they have found a most excellent
subterfuge, when they explain _works_, in these passages, to mean those
which men yet unregenerate perform without the grace of Christ, merely
through the unassisted efforts of their own free‐will; and deny that they
relate to spiritual works. Thus, according to them, a man is justified
both by faith and by works, only the works are not properly his own, but
the gifts of Christ and the fruits of regeneration. For they say that Paul
spoke in this manner, only that the Jews, who relied on their own
strength, might be convinced of their folly in arrogating righteousness to
themselves, whereas it is conferred on us solely by the Spirit of Christ,
not by any exertion properly our own. But they do not observe, that in the
contrast of legal and evangelical righteousness, which Paul introduces in
another place, all works are excluded, by what title soever they may be
distinguished. For he teaches that this is the righteousness of the law,
that he who has fulfilled the command of the law shall obtain
salvation;(1931) but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing
that Christ has died and is risen again.(1932) Besides, we shall see, as
we proceed, in its proper place, that sanctification and righteousness are
separate blessings of Christ. Whence it follows, that even spiritual works
are not taken into the account, when the power of justifying is attributed
to faith. And the assertion of Paul, in the place just cited, that Abraham
has not whereof to glory before God, since he was not justified by works,
ought not to be restricted to any literal appearance or external display
of virtue, or to any efforts of free‐will; but though the life of the
patriarch was spiritual, and almost angelic, yet his works did not possess
sufficient merit to justify him before God.
XV. The errors of the schoolmen, who mingle their preparations, are rather
more gross; but they instil into the simple and incautious a doctrine
equally corrupt, while under the pretext of the Spirit and of grace, they
conceal the mercy of God, which alone can calm the terrors of the
conscience. We confess, indeed, with Paul, that “the doers of the law are
justified before God;”(1933) but since we are all far from being observers
of the law, we conclude, that those works which should be principally
available to justification, afford us no assistance, because we are
destitute of them. With respect to the common Papists, or schoolmen, they
are in this matter doubly deceived; both in denominating faith a certainty
of conscience in expecting from God a reward of merit, and in explaining
the grace of God to be, not an imputation of gratuitous righteousness, but
the Spirit assisting to the pursuit of holiness. They read in the apostle,
“He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
of them that diligently seek him.”(1934) But they do not consider the
manner of seeking him. And that they mistake the sense of the word
“grace,” is evident from their writings. For Lombard represents
justification by Christ as given us in two ways. He says, “The death of
Christ justifies us, first, because it excites charity in our hearts, by
which we are made actually righteous; secondly, because it destroys sin,
by which the devil held us in captivity, so that now it cannot condemn
us.” We see how he considers the grace of God in justification to consist
in our being directed to good works by the grace of the Holy Spirit. He
wished, indeed, to follow the opinion of Augustine; but he follows him at
a great distance, and even deviates considerably from a close imitation of
him; for whatever he finds clearly stated by him, he obscures, and
whatever he finds pure in him, he corrupts. The schools have always been
running into worse and worse errors, till at length they have precipitated
themselves into a kind of Pelagianism. Nor, indeed, is the opinion of
Augustine, or at least his manner of expression, to be altogether
admitted. For though he excellently despoils man of all the praise of
righteousness, and ascribes the whole to the grace of God, yet he refers
grace to sanctification, in which we are regenerated by the Spirit to
newness of life.
XVI. The Scripture, when speaking of the righteousness of faith, leads us
to something very different. It teaches us, that being diverted from the
contemplation of our own works, we should regard nothing but the mercy of
God and the perfection of Christ. For it states this to be the order of
justification; that from the beginning God deigns to embrace sinful man
with his pure and gratuitous goodness, contemplating nothing in him to
excite mercy, but his misery; (for God beholds him utterly destitute of
all good works;) deriving from himself the motive for blessing him, that
he may affect the sinner himself with a sense of his supreme goodness,
who, losing all confidence in his own works, rests the whole of his
salvation on the Divine mercy. This is the sentiment of faith, by which
the sinner comes to the enjoyment of his salvation, when he knows from the
doctrine of the gospel that he is reconciled to God; that having obtained
remission of sins, he is justified by the intervention of the
righteousness of Christ; and though regenerated by the Spirit of God, he
thinks on everlasting righteousness reserved for him, not in the good
works to which he devotes himself, but solely in the righteousness of
Christ. When all these things shall have been particularly examined, they
will afford a perspicuous explication of our opinion. They will, however,
be better digested in a different order from that in which they have been
proposed. But it is of little importance, provided they are so connected
with each other, that we may have the whole subject rightly stated and
well confirmed.
XVII. Here it is proper to recall to remembrance the relation we have
before stated between faith and the gospel; since the reason why faith is
said to justify, is, that it receives and embraces the righteousness
offered in the gospel. But its being offered by the gospel absolutely
excludes all consideration of works. This Paul very clearly demonstrates
on various occasions; and particularly in two passages. In his Epistle to
the Romans, contrasting the law and the gospel, he says, “Moses describeth
the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those
things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith
speaketh on this wise: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the
dead, thou shalt be saved.”(1935) Do you perceive how he thus
discriminates between the law and the gospel, that the former attributes
righteousness to works, but the latter bestows it freely, without the
assistance of works? It is a remarkable passage, and may serve to
extricate us from a multitude of difficulties, if we understand that the
righteousness which is given us by the gospel is free from all legal
conditions. This is the reason why he more than once strongly opposes the
_promise_ to the _law_. “If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more
of promise;”(1936) and more in the same chapter to the same purpose. It is
certain that the law also has its promises. Wherefore, unless we will
confess the comparison to be improper, there must be something distinct
and different in the promises of the gospel. Now, what can that be, but
that they are gratuitous and solely dependent on the Divine mercy, whilst
the promises of the law depend on the condition of works? Nor let any one
object, that it is only the righteousness which men would obtrude on God
from their own natural powers and free‐will that is rejected; since Paul
teaches it as a universal truth, that the precepts of the law are
unprofitable, because, not only among the vulgar, but even among the very
best of men, there is not one who can fulfil them.(1937) Love is certainly
the principal branch of the law: when the Spirit of God forms us to it,
why does it not constitute any part of our righteousness, but because even
in the saints it is imperfect, and therefore of itself deserves no reward?
XVIII. The other passage is as follows: “That no man is justified by the
law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in
them.”(1938) How could this argument be supported, unless it were certain
that works do not come into the account of faith, but are to be entirely
separated from it? The law, he says, differs from faith. Why? Because
works are required to the righteousness of the law. It follows, therefore,
that works are not required to the righteousness of faith. From this
statement it appears, that they who are justified by faith, are justified
without the merit of works, and beyond the merit of works; for faith
receives that righteousness which the gospel bestows; and the gospel
differs from the law in this respect, that it does not confine
righteousness to works, but rests it entirely on the mercy of God. He
argues in a similar manner to the Romans, that “Abraham had not whereof to
glory; for he believed God, and it was counted unto him for
righteousness;”(1939) and by way of confirmation he subjoins, that then
there is room for the righteousness of faith when there are no works which
merit any reward. He tells us, that where there are works, they receive a
reward “of debt,” but that what is given to faith is “of grace;” for this
is the clear import of the language which he there uses. When he adds, a
little after, “Therefore it is of faith” that we obtain the inheritance,
in order “that it might be by grace,”(1940) he infers that the inheritance
is gratuitous, because it is received by faith: and why is this, but
because faith, without any assistance of works, depends wholly on the
Divine mercy? And in the same sense undoubtedly he elsewhere teaches us,
that “the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being
witnessed by the law and the prophets;”(1941) because, by excluding the
law, he denies that righteousness is assisted by works, or that we obtain
it by working, but asserts that we come empty in order to receive it.
XIX. The reader will now discover, with what justice the sophists of the
present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say _that a man is justified by
faith only_. That a man is justified _by faith_, they do not deny, because
the Scripture so often declares it; but since it is nowhere expressly said
to be by faith only, they cannot bear this addition to be made. But what
reply will they give to these words of Paul, where he contends that
“righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous?”(1942) How can any
thing gratuitous consist with works? And by what cavils will they elude
what he asserts in another place, that in the gospel “is the righteousness
of God revealed?”(1943) If righteousness is revealed in the gospel, it is
certainly not a mutilated and partial, but a complete and perfect one. The
law, therefore, has no concern in it. And respecting this exclusive
particle, _only_, they rest on an evasion which is not only false, but
glaringly ridiculous. For does not he most completely attribute every
thing to faith alone, who denies every thing to works? What is the meaning
of these expressions of Paul? “Righteousness is manifested without the
law,” “justified freely by his grace,” “justified without the deeds of the
law.”(1944) Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, which, though it is
not of their own invention, but borrowed from Origen and some of the
ancients, is nevertheless very absurd. They pretend that the works
excluded are the ceremonial works of the law, not the moral works. They
have made such a proficiency by their perpetual disputations, that they
have forgotten the first elements of logic. Do they suppose the apostle to
have been insane, when he adduced these passages in proof of his doctrine?
“The man that doeth them shall live in them;” and “Cursed is every one
that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law
to do them.”(1945) If they be in their sober senses, they will not assert
that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse
denounced merely on the transgressors of them. If these places are to be
understood of the moral law, it is beyond a doubt, that moral works
likewise are excluded from the power to justify. To the same purpose are
these arguments which he uses: “For by the law is the knowledge of sin;”
consequently not righteousness. “Because the law worketh wrath,”(1946)
therefore not righteousness. Since the law cannot assure our consciences,
neither can it confer righteousness. Since faith is counted for
righteousness, consequently righteousness is not a reward of works, but is
gratuitously bestowed. Since we are justified by faith, boasting is
precluded. “If there had been a law given which could have given life,
verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath
concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might
be given to them that believe.”(1947) Let them idly pretend, if they dare,
that these are applicable to ceremonies, not to morals; but even children
would explode such consummate impudence. We may therefore be assured, that
when the power of justifying is denied to the law, the whole law is
included.
XX. If any one should wonder why the apostle does not content himself with
simply mentioning _works_, but says _works of the law_, the reason is
obvious. For though works are so greatly esteemed, they derive their value
from the Divine approbation rather than from any intrinsic excellence. For
who can dare to boast to God of any righteousness of works, but what he
has approved? Who can dare to claim any reward as due to them, but what he
has promised? It is owing, therefore, to the Divine favour, that they are
accounted worthy both of the title and of the reward of righteousness; and
so they are valuable, only when they are intended as acts of obedience to
God. Wherefore the apostle, in another place, in order to prove that
Abraham could not be justified by works, alleges, that “the law was four
hundred and thirty years after the covenant was confirmed.”(1948) Ignorant
persons would ridicule such an argument, because there might have been
righteous works before the promulgation of the law; but knowing that works
have no such intrinsic worth, independently of the testimony and esteem of
God, he has taken it for granted that, antecedently to the law, they had
no power to justify. We know why he expressly mentions “the works of the
law,” when he means to deny justification by works; it is because they
alone can furnish any occasion of controversy. However, he likewise
excludes all works, without any limitation, as when he says, “David
describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works.”(1949) They cannot, therefore, by any
subtleties prevent us from retaining this general exclusive particle. It
is in vain, also, that they catch at another frivolous subtlety, alleging
that we are justified only by that “faith which worketh by love;”(1950)
with a view to represent righteousness as depending on love. We
acknowledge, indeed, with Paul, that no other faith justifies, except that
“which worketh by love;” but it does not derive its power to justify from
the efficacy of that love. It justifies in no other way than as it
introduces us into a participation of the righteousness of Christ.
Otherwise there would be no force in the argument so strenuously urged by
the apostle. “To him that worketh,” says he, “is the reward not reckoned
of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness.”(1951) Was it possible for him to speak more plainly than
by thus asserting, that there is no righteousness of faith, except where
there are no works entitled to any reward; and that faith is imputed for
righteousness, only when righteousness is conferred through unmerited
grace?
XXI. Now, let us examine the truth of what has been asserted in the
definition, that the righteousness of faith is a reconciliation with God,
which consists solely in remission of sins.(1952) We must always return to
this axiom—That the Divine wrath remains on all men, as long as they
continue to be sinners. This Isaiah has beautifully expressed in the
following words: “The Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save;
neither is his ear heavy, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have
separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from
you, that he will not hear.”(1953) We are informed, that sin makes a
division between man and God, and turns the Divine countenance away from
the sinner. Nor can it be otherwise; because it is incompatible with his
righteousness to have any communion with sin. Hence the apostle teaches,
that man is an enemy to God, till he be reconciled to him through
Christ.(1954) Whom, therefore, the Lord receives into fellowship, him he
is said to justify; because he cannot receive any one into favour or into
fellowship with himself, without making him from a sinner to be a
righteous person. This, we add, is accomplished by the remission of sins.
For if they, whom the Lord has reconciled to himself, be judged according
to their works, they will still be found actually sinners; who,
notwithstanding, must be absolved and free from sin. It appears, then,
that those whom God receives, are made righteous no otherwise than as they
are purified by being cleansed from all their defilements by the remission
of their sins; so that such a righteousness may, in one word, be
denominated a remission of sins.
XXII. Both these points are fully established by the language of Paul,
which I have already recited. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world
unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed
unto us the word of reconciliation.”(1955) Then he adds the substance of
his ministry: “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1956) The terms
“righteousness” and “reconciliation” are here used by him
indiscriminately, to teach us that they are mutually comprehended in each
other. And he states the manner of obtaining this righteousness to consist
in our transgressions not being imputed to us. Wherefore we can no longer
doubt how God justifies, when we hear that he reconciles us to himself by
not imputing our sins to us. Thus, in the Epistle to the Romans, the
apostle proves, that “God imputeth righteousness without works,” from the
testimony of David, who declares, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord
will not impute sin.”(1957) By “blessedness,” in this passage, he
undoubtedly means righteousness; for since he asserts it to consist in
remission of sins, there is no reason for our adopting any other
definition of it. Wherefore Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist,
places “the knowledge of salvation” in “the remission of sins.”(1958) And
Paul, observing the same rule in the sermon which he preached to the
people of Antioch on the subject of salvation, is stated by Luke to have
concluded in the following manner: “Through this man is preached unto you
the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from
all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of
Moses.”(1959) The apostle thus connects “forgiveness of sins” with
“justification,” to show that they are identically the same; whence he
justly argues, that this righteousness which we obtain through the favour
of God is gratuitously bestowed upon us. Nor should it be thought a
strange expression, that believers are justified before God, not by their
works, but by his gracious acceptance of them; since it occurs so
frequently in the Scripture, and sometimes also in the fathers. Augustine
says, “The righteousness of the saints, in this world, consists rather in
the remission of their sins than in the perfection of their virtues.” With
which corresponds the remarkable observation of Bernard: “Not to sin at
all, is the righteousness of God; but the righteousness of man is the
Divine grace and mercy.” He had before asserted, “that Christ is
righteousness to us in absolution, and therefore that they alone are
righteous who have obtained pardon through his mercy.”
XXIII. Hence, also, it is evident, that we obtain justification before
God, solely by the intervention of the righteousness of Christ. Which is
equivalent to saying, that a man is righteous, not in himself, but because
the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation; and this
is a point which deserves an attentive consideration. For it supersedes
that idle notion, that a man is justified by faith, because faith receives
the Spirit of God by whom he is made righteous; which is too repugnant to
the foregoing doctrine, ever to be reconcilable to it. For he must
certainly be destitute of all righteousness of his own, who is taught to
seek a righteousness out of himself. This is most clearly asserted by the
apostle, when he says, “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no
sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1960) We see
that our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ; and that all
our title to it rests solely on our being partakers of Christ; for in
possessing him, we possess all his riches with him. Nor does any objection
arise from what he states in another place, that “God, sending his own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh;
that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us;”(1961) where
he intends no other fulfilment than what we obtain by imputation. For the
Lord Christ so communicates his righteousness to us, that, with reference
to the Divine judgment, he transfuses its virtue into us in a most
wonderful manner. That the apostle intended no other, abundantly appears
from another declaration, which he had made just before: “As by one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many
be made righteous.”(1962) What is placing our righteousness in the
obedience of Christ, but asserting, that we are accounted righteous only
because his obedience is accepted for us as if it were our own? Wherefore
Ambrose appears to me to have very beautifully exemplified this
righteousness in the benediction of Jacob; that as he, who had on his own
account no claim to the privileges of primogeniture, being concealed in
his brother’s habit, and invested with his garment, which diffused a most
excellent odour, insinuated himself into the favour of his father, that he
might receive the benediction to his own advantage, under the character of
another; so we shelter ourselves under the precious purity of Christ our
elder brother, that we may obtain the testimony of righteousness in the
sight of God. The words of Ambrose are, “That Isaac smelled the odour of
the garments, perhaps indicates, that we are justified not by works, but
by faith; since the infirmity of the flesh is an impediment to works, but
the brightness of faith, which merits the pardon of sin, conceals the
error of our actions.” And such is indeed the real fact; for that we may
appear before the face of God to salvation, it is necessary for us to be
perfumed with his fragrance, and to have all our deformities concealed and
absorbed in his perfection.
Chapter XII. A Consideration Of The Divine Tribunal, Necessary To A
Serious Conviction Of Gratuitous Justification.
Though it appears, from the plainest testimonies, that all these things
are strictly true, yet we shall not clearly discover how necessary they
are, till we shall have taken a view of what ought to be the foundation of
all this argument. In the first place, therefore, we should reflect that
we are not treating of the righteousness of a human court, but of that of
the heavenly tribunal; in order that we may not apply any diminutive
standard of our own, to estimate the integrity of conduct required to
satisfy the Divine justice. But it is wonderful, with what temerity and
presumption this is commonly decided; and it is even observable, that no
men give us more confident or pompous declamations concerning the
righteousness of works, than those who are notoriously guilty of open sins
or addicted to secret vices. This arises from their never thinking of the
righteousness of God, the smallest sense of which would prevent them from
treating it with such contempt. And certainly it is exceedingly
undervalued, if it be not acknowledged to be so perfect that nothing can
be acceptable to it but what is absolutely complete and immaculate, such
as it never was, nor ever will be, possible to find in fallen man. It is
easy for any one in the cloisters of the schools, to indulge himself in
idle speculations on the merit of works to justify men; but when he comes
into the presence of God, he must bid farewell to these amusements, for
there the business is transacted with seriousness, and no ludicrous
logomachy practised. To this point, then, must our attention be directed,
if we wish to make any useful inquiry concerning true righteousness; how
we can answer the celestial Judge, when he shall call us to an account.
Let us place that Judge before our eyes, not according to the spontaneous
imaginations of our minds, but according to the descriptions given of him
in the Scripture; which represents him as one whose refulgence eclipses
the stars, whose power melts the mountains, whose anger shakes the earth,
whose wisdom takes the subtle in their own craftiness, whose purity makes
all things appear polluted, whose righteousness even the angels are unable
to bear, who acquits not the guilty, whose vengeance, when it is once
kindled, penetrates even to the abyss of hell.(1963) Let him seat himself,
I say, on the tribunal, to examine the actions of men: who will present
himself fearless before his throne? “Who shall dwell with the devouring
fire?” saith the prophet. “Who shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He
that walketh righteously and speaketh uprightly,” &c.(1964) Now let him
come forward, whoever he is. But this answer causes not one to appear.
For, on the contrary, we hear this fearful speech, “If thou, Lord,
shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”(1965) In truth, all
must speedily perish, as it is written in another place, “Shall mortal man
be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker? Behold, he
put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly; how
much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the
dust, which are crushed before the moth? They are destroyed from morning
to evening.”(1966) Again: “Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea,
the heavens are not clean in his sight; how much more abominable and
filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?”(1967) I confess that
in the Book of Job mention is made of a righteousness which is superior to
the observance of the law. And it will be of use to remember this
distinction; because, though any one could satisfy the law, he could not
even then stand the scrutiny of that righteousness which exceeds all
comprehension. Therefore, though Job is conscious of his own integrity,
yet he is mute with astonishment, when he sees that God could not be
pleased even with the sanctity of angels, if he were to enter into a
strict examination of their works. I shall, therefore, now pass over that
righteousness to which I have alluded, because it is incomprehensible, and
content myself with asserting, that we must be worse than stupid, if, on
an examination of our lives by the rule of the written law, we are not
tormented with awful dread in consequence of so many maledictions, which
God has designed to arouse us, and among the rest this general one:
“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do
them.”(1968) In short, this whole controversy will be uninteresting and
useless, unless every one present himself as a criminal before the
celestial Judge, and voluntarily prostrate and humble himself in deep
solicitude concerning his absolution.
II. To this point our eyes ought to have been raised, that we might learn
rather to tremble through fear, than to indulge in vain exultation. It is
easy, indeed, while the comparison is made only between men, for every man
to imagine himself to be possessed of something which others ought not to
contemn; but when we ascend to the contemplation of God, that confidence
is immediately lost. And the case of our soul with respect to God is
similar to that of our body with respect to the visible heavens; for the
eye, as long as it is employed in beholding adjacent objects, receives
proofs of its own perspicacity; but if it be directed towards the sun,
dazzled and confounded with his overpowering brightness, it feels no less
debility in beholding him, than strength in the view of inferior objects.
Let us not, then, deceive ourselves with a vain confidence, although we
consider ourselves equal or superior to other men. That is nothing to God,
to whose decision this cause must be submitted. But if our insolence
cannot be restrained by these admonitions, he will reply to us in the
language which he addressed to the Pharisees: “Ye are they which justify
yourselves before men; but that which is highly esteemed among men, is
abomination in the sight of God.”(1969) Go now, and among men proudly
glory in your righteousness, while the God of heaven abominates it. But
what is the language of the servants of God, who are truly taught by his
Spirit? One says, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy
sight shall no man living be justified.”(1970) And another, though in a
sense somewhat different, “How should man be just with God? If he will
contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.”(1971) Here we
are plainly informed respecting the righteousness of God, that it is such
as no human works can satisfy; and such as renders it impossible for us,
if accused of a thousand crimes, to exculpate ourselves from one of them.
The same idea of this righteousness had very properly been entertained by
Paul, that “chosen vessel”(1972) of God, when he professed, “I am
conscious to myself of nothing; yet am I not hereby justified.”(1973)
III. Nor is it only in the sacred Scriptures that such examples are found.
All pious writers discover similar sentiments. Thus Augustine says, “The
only hope of all the pious, who groan under this burden of corruptible
flesh, and amidst the infirmities of this life, is, that we have a
Mediator, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our
sins.” What is the meaning of this observation? If this is their only
hope, where is any confidence in works? For when he asserts this to be the
only one, he precludes every other. Bernard also says, “And in fact where
can be found safe and solid rest and security for the weak, but in the
wounds of the Saviour? There I dwell with the greater security, in
proportion to his power to save. The world rages, the body oppresses, the
devil lies in wait to destroy. I do not fall, because my foundation is on
a firm rock. I have committed heinous sin. My conscience is disturbed, but
shall not fall into despair, because I shall recall to remembrance the
wounds of the Lord.” From these considerations he afterwards concludes,
“My merit, therefore, is the compassion of the Lord: I am clearly not
destitute of merit, as long as he is not destitute of compassions. But if
the mercies of the Lord be a multitude of mercies, my merits are likewise
equally numerous. Shall I sing of my own righteousness? O Lord, I will
remember thy righteousness alone. For it is mine also, since he is made of
God righteousness unto me.” Again, in another place: “This is the whole
merit of man—to fix all his hope on him who saves the whole man.” Likewise
in another place, retaining peace to himself, and ascribing the glory to
God, he says, “To thee let the glory remain undiminished. It is happy for
me, if I have peace. The glory I entirely renounce; lest, if I usurp what
is not mine, I lose also that which is offered me.” In another place he is
still more explicit: “Why should the Church be solicitous about merits,
while it has a stronger and more secure reason for glorying in the designs
of God? You need not inquire on account of what merits we hope for
blessings, especially when you read in the prophet, ‘Thus saith the Lord
God; I do not this for your sakes, but for mine holy name’s sake.’(1974)
It suffices with respect to merit, to know that merits are not sufficient;
but as it suffices for merit not to presume on merits, so to be destitute
of merits is sufficient cause of condemnation.” We must excuse his custom
of freely using the word _merits_ for good works. But his ultimate design
was to terrify hypocrites, who indulge themselves in a licentious course
of sin against the grace of God; as he presently declares: “Happy is the
Church which wants neither merits without presumption, nor presumption
without merits. It has some ground of presumption, but not merits. It has
merits, but in order to deserve, not to presume. Is not the absence of
presumption itself a merit? Therefore the Church presumes the more
securely, because it does not presume, having ample cause for glorying in
the multitude of the Divine mercies.”
IV. This is the real truth. The troubled conscience finds this to be the
only asylum of safety, where it can enjoy any tranquillity, when it has to
do with the Divine justice. For if the stars, which appeared most
brilliant during the night, lose their splendour on the rising of the sun,
what can we suppose will be the case with the most excellent innocence of
man, when compared with the purity of God? For that will be an examination
inconceivably severe, which shall penetrate into all the most secret
thoughts of the heart, and, as Paul says, “bring to light the hidden
things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts;”(1975)
which shall constrain the reluctant conscience to confess all those things
which have now passed away even from our own remembrance. We shall be
urged by an accusing devil, who has been privy to all the crimes which he
has impelled us to perpetrate. There the external appearance of good
works, which now is the sole object of esteem, will be of no avail;
sincerity of heart is all that will be required. Wherefore hypocrisy, not
only that by which a man, conscious of his guilt before God, affects
ostentation before men, but that also by which every man imposes on
himself before God, for we are all prone to self‐complacency and
adulation; hypocrisy in all its forms will then be overwhelmed with
confusion, however it may now be intoxicated with presumption and pride.
Persons who never look forward to such a spectacle, may, indeed,
delightfully and complacently compose for themselves a temporary
righteousness, of which they will immediately be stripped at the Divine
judgment; just as immense riches, accumulated by us in a dream, vanish as
soon as we awake. But they who inquire seriously, and as in the presence
of God, respecting the true standard of righteousness, will certainly find
that all the actions of men, if estimated according to their intrinsic
worth, are utterly defiled and polluted; that what is commonly considered
as righteousness, is, in the Divine view, nothing but iniquity; that what
is accounted integrity, is mere pollution; and that what is reputed glory,
is real ignominy.
V. From this contemplation of the Divine perfection, let us not be
unwilling to descend to take a view of ourselves, without adulation or
blind self‐love. For it is not to be wondered at, if we are so extremely
blind in this respect, since not one of us is sufficiently cautious of
that pestilent self‐indulgence, which the Scripture declares to be
naturally inherent in us all. “Every way of man,” says Solomon, “is right
in his own eyes.”(1976) Again: “All the ways of a man are clean in his own
eyes.”(1977) But what follows from this? Is he absolved from guilt by this
delusion? Not at all; but, as is immediately added, “the Lord weigheth the
spirits;” that is, while men are congratulating themselves on account of
the external mask of righteousness which they wear, the Lord is at the
same time weighing in his own balance the latent impurity of their hearts.
Since we are so far from deriving any advantage, therefore, from such
blandishments, let us not voluntarily delude ourselves to our own
perdition. That we may examine ourselves properly, it is necessary for us
to summon our conscience to the tribunal of God. For we have the greatest
need of his light in order to detect the recesses of our depravity, which
otherwise are too deeply concealed. For then only shall we clearly
perceive the force of this language: “How can man be justified with
God—man, who is” corruption and “a worm, abominable and filthy, and who
drinketh iniquity like water?”(1978) “Who can bring a clean thing out of
an unclean? Not one.”(1979) Then also we shall experience what Job said
concerning himself: “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me;
if I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.”(1980) For the
complaint, which the prophet formerly made respecting Israel, “All we like
sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;”(1981) is
applicable not only to one period of time, but to all ages. For he there
comprehends all to whom the grace of redemption was to extend; and the
rigour of this examination ought to proceed till it shall have filled us
with complete consternation, and thus prepared us to receive the grace of
Christ. For he is deceived who supposes himself capable of this enjoyment,
without having first been truly humbled. It is a well‐known observation,
that “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.”(1982)
VI. But what means have we of humbling ourselves, except by submitting,
all poor and destitute, to the Divine mercy? For I do not call it
humility, if we suppose that we have any thing left. And hitherto they
have taught a pernicious hypocrisy, who have connected these two
maxims—that we should entertain humble thoughts of ourselves before God,
and that we should attach some dignity to our own righteousness. For if we
address to God a confession which is contrary to our real sentiments, we
are guilty of telling him an impudent falsehood; but we cannot think of
ourselves as we ought to think, without utterly despising every thing that
may be supposed an excellence in us. When we hear, therefore, from the
Psalmist, that “God will save the afflicted people, but will bring down
high looks,”(1983) let us consider, first, that there is no way of
salvation till we have laid aside all pride, and attained sincere
humility; secondly, that this humility is not a species of modesty,
consisting in conceding to God a small portion of what we might justly
claim, as they are called humble among men, who neither haughtily exalt
themselves nor behave with insolence to others, while they nevertheless
entertain some consciousness of excellence: this humility is the unfeigned
submission of a mind overwhelmed with a weighty sense of its own misery
and poverty; for such is the uniform description of it in the word of God.
When the Lord speaks thus in Zephaniah, “I will take away out of the midst
of thee them that rejoice in thy pride; I will also leave in the midst of
thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the
Lord;”(1984) does he not clearly show who are truly humble? even such as
are afflicted with a knowledge of their own poverty. On the contrary, he
describes the proud as persons “rejoicing,” because this is the usual
consequence of prosperity. But to the humble, whom he intends to save, he
leaves nothing but that “they trust in the name of the Lord.” Thus also in
Isaiah, “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a
contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.”(1985) Again: “Thus saith the
high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell
in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble
spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the
contrite ones.”(1986) By the contrition so frequently mentioned, we must
understand a wounded heart, which prevents a man from rising when humbled
in the dust. With such contrition must our heart be wounded, if we desire,
according to the declaration of the Lord, to be exalted with the humble.
If this be not the case, we shall be abased by the powerful hand of God to
our shame and disgrace.(1987)
VII. And, not content with mere precepts, our excellent Master, in a
parable, as in a picture, has presented us with an example of genuine
humility. For he introduces a publican, who, “standing afar off, would not
lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast,
saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”(1988) We must not conclude these
circumstances—his not presuming to look upwards, standing afar off,
smiting upon his breast, and confessing himself a sinner—to be marks of
feigned modesty; we may be certain that they were sincere evidences of the
disposition of his heart. To him our Lord opposes a Pharisee, who said,
“God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust,
adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give
tithes of all that I possess.” He openly confesses the righteousness which
he has, to be the gift of God; but because he confides in his being
righteous, he departs from the presence of God unacceptable and hateful to
him. The publican, acknowledging his iniquity, is justified. Hence we may
see how very pleasing our humiliation is in the sight of God; so that the
heart is not open for the reception of his mercy unless it be divested of
all idea of its own dignity. When this notion has occupied the mind, it
precludes the admission of Divine mercy. That no one might have any doubt
of this, Christ was sent by his Father into the world with a commission,
“to preach good tidings unto the meek; to bind up the broken‐hearted; to
proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them
that are bound; to comfort all that mourn; to give unto them beauty for
ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit
of heaviness.”(1989) In pursuance of this commission, he invites to a
participation of his benefits none but those who “labour and are heavy
laden.”(1990) And in another place he says, “I am not come to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance.”(1991)
VIII. Therefore, if we would obey the call of Christ, let us dismiss all
arrogance and carelessness from our minds. The former arises from a
foolish persuasion of our own righteousness, when a man supposes himself
to be possessed of any thing, the merit of which can recommend him to God;
the latter may exist without any consideration of works. For multitudes of
sinners, inebriated with criminal pleasures, and forgetful of the Divine
judgment, are in a state, as it were, of lethargic insensibility, so that
they never aspire after the mercy which is offered to them. But it is
equally necessary for us to shake off such stupidity, and to reject all
confidence in ourselves, in order that, being freed from every
incumbrance, we may hasten to Christ, all destitute and hungry, to be
filled with his blessings. For we shall never have sufficient confidence
in him, unless we entirely lose all confidence in ourselves; we shall
never find sufficient encouragement in him, unless we are previously
dejected in ourselves; we shall never enjoy sufficient consolation in him,
unless we are utterly disconsolate in ourselves. We are prepared,
therefore, to seek and obtain the grace of God, discarding at the same
time all confidence in ourselves, and relying solely on the assurance of
his mercy, “when,” as Augustine says, “forgetting our own merits, we
embrace the free gifts of Christ; because, if he sought merits in us, we
should not come to his free gifts.” With him Bernard fully agrees, when he
compares proud men, that arrogate ever so little to their own merits, to
unfaithful servants, because they unjustly claim the praise of the grace
which passes through them; just as though a wall should say that it
produces the sunbeams which it receives through a window. But not to dwell
any longer on this, we may lay it down as a brief, but general and certain
maxim, that he is prepared for a participation of the benefits of Divine
mercy, who has wholly divested himself, I will not say of his
righteousness, which is a mere nullity, but of the vain and airy phantom
of righteousness; for as far as any man is satisfied with himself, so far
he raises an impediment to the exercise of the grace of God.
Chapter XIII. Two Things Necessary To Be Observed In Gratuitous
Justification.
Here are two things to which we must always be particularly attentive; to
maintain the glory of the Lord unimpaired and undiminished, and to
preserve in our own consciences a placid composure and serene tranquillity
with regard to the Divine judgment. We see how frequently and solicitously
the Scripture exhorts us to render ascriptions of praise to God alone,
when it treats of justification. And, indeed, the apostle assures us that
the design of the Lord in conferring righteousness upon us in Christ, is
to manifest his own righteousness. The nature of that manifestation he
immediately subjoins: it is, “that he might be just, and the justifier of
him which believeth in Jesus.”(1992) The righteousness of God, we see, is
not sufficiently illustrious, unless he alone be esteemed righteous, and
communicate the grace of justification to the unworthy. For this reason it
is his will “that every mouth be stopped, and all the world become guilty
before him;”(1993) because, as long as man has any thing to allege in his
own defence, it detracts something from the glory of God. Thus in Ezekiel
he teaches us how greatly we glorify his name by an acknowledgment of our
iniquity: “Ye shall remember your ways, (saith he,) and all your doings,
wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall loathe yourselves in your own
sight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I
am the Lord, when I have wrought with you for my name’s sake, not
according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt
doings.”(1994) If these things are contained in the true knowledge of God,
that, humbled with a consciousness of our iniquity, we should consider him
as indulging us with blessings of which we are unworthy, why do we
attempt, to our own serious injury, to pilfer the smallest particle of the
praise due to his gratuitous goodness? Thus also when Jeremiah proclaims,
“Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man
glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him
that glorieth glory in the Lord;”(1995) does he not suggest that the glory
of God sustains some diminution, if any man glory in himself? To this use
these words are clearly applied by Paul, when he states, that all the
branches of our salvation are deposited with Christ, that we may not glory
except in the Lord.(1996) For he intimates, that they who suppose
themselves to have even the least ground for glorying in themselves, are
guilty of rebelling against God, and obscuring his glory.
II. The truth, then, is, that we never truly glory in him, till we have
entirely renounced all glory of our own. On the converse, this may be
admitted as an axiom universally true, that they who glory in themselves,
glory in opposition to God. For Paul is of opinion that the world is not
“subject to the judgment of God,” till men are deprived of all foundation
for glorying.(1997) Therefore Isaiah, when he announces, that “in the Lord
shall all the seed of Israel be justified,” adds also, “and shall glory;”
as though he had said, that the end of God in justifying the elect was,
that they might glory in himself, and in no other. But how we should glory
in the Lord, he had stated in the preceding verse: “Surely, shall one say,
in the Lord have I righteousness and strength.” Let us observe, that what
is required is not a simple confession, but a confession confirmed by an
oath; that we may not suppose any fictitious pretence of humility to be
sufficient.(1998) Here let no one plead that he does not glory at all,
when without arrogance he recognizes his own righteousness; for such an
opinion cannot exist without generating confidence, nor confidence without
being attended with glorying. Let us remember, therefore, in the whole
controversy concerning righteousness, that this end must be kept in view,
that all the praise of it may remain perfect and undiminished with the
Lord; because, according to the apostle’s testimony, he has bestowed his
grace on us in order “to declare his righteousness; that he might be just,
and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”(1999) Wherefore, in
another place, after having declared that the Lord has conferred salvation
on us in order to display “the praise of the glory of his grace,”(2000)
repeating, as it were, the same sentiment, he adds, “By grace are ye saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of
works, lest any man should boast.”(2001) And when Peter admonishes us that
we are called to the hope of salvation, “that we should show forth the
praises (or virtues) of him who hath called us out of darkness into his
marvellous light,”(2002) he evidently means that the praises of God alone
should resound in the ears of believers, so as to impose total silence on
all the presumption of the flesh. The conclusion of the whole is, that man
cannot without sacrilege arrogate to himself the least particle of
righteousness, because it is so much detracted and diminished from the
glory of the righteousness of God.